Appeal No:44/SCIC/2012 Decided on : 13/02/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No:44/SCIC/2012

Decided on : 13/02/2014

Cyril Fernandes

Attorney for Vernon Fonseca

405, B’Symphony’ Lokhandwala Complex

Andheri Mumbai. ---- Appellant

V/s

Dy. Director of Panchayats/PIO

Junta House, Panaji, Goa

Director of Panchayat/FAA

Junta House, Panaji, Goa. ---- Respondents

O R D E R

RTI application filed on : 28/08/2011

PIO replied : 4/10/2011

First Appeal filed on : 01/11/2011
First Appellate Authority Order in : 09/01/2012

Second Appeal on : 22/02/2012

1) This RTI application has a small background. The applicant herein Shri Vernon Fonseca had made certain complaints about one Village Panchayat Officer Shri Vipin Korgoankar which has resulted in an enquiry having been initiated against the said Village Panchayat Secretary as per the order of Director of Panchayat No. 15/DP/VIG/Bar/09/1713, dated 23-2-2011.

2) The applicant therefore asked for following information under RTI Act 2005 on 28/08/2011.

“Kindly therefore issue me certified copies of the findings of the enquiry conducted by Shri Melvin Vaz, managing Director, Goa Housing Board and Shri Arvind Kutkar, BDO, Ponda, along with the Action taken report, if any, in the said enquiry”.

3) Reply was given on 04/10/2011 by the PIO stating that

“In this regard, I am to inform you that the inquiry is pending before the Inquiry Authority Shri Melvin Vaz, Managing Director, Goa Housing Board. You may obtain copy of findings/report from the Inquiry Authority”.

2/-

-2-

4) First appeal was made on 01/11/2011 on following grounds

I) The PIO, instead of asking the applicant to obtain copy of Findings/report from the inquiry Authority should have either transferred my application, under sec 6(3) or should have given the information himself.

II) That the SPIO gave wrong information by stating that shri Melvin Vaz is the Managing Director of Goa Housing Board.

III) Shri Melvin Vaz was transferred to another department in the month of March 2011. He is since the Commissioner of PMC, so the SPIO should have rightfully transferred my application to the Commissioner of PMC.

IV) The departmental inquiry which was initiated on 23/02/2011 was to be completed within six months, but even after eight months the office of the Director of Panchayats never bothered to find out if the inquiry was complete.

5) The first appeal was taken up under case No.DP/APPEAL/RIA/22/2011.The plea taken by the PIO was

“After going through application of the applicant it is my submission that the enquiry against Shri. Vipin Korgoankar is still in progress with the enquiry officer, the status of which is not known to this office. However another reminder has been sent to enquiry officer on dated 06/12/2011. Further it would not be advisable to disclose any finding in an enquiry before it is completed my reply be accepted and proceeding may be dropped”.

6) The first appeal was decided on 09/01/2012 agreeing with the PIO. The appeal therefore was dismissed. Hence the second appeal.

7) The second appeal came up for hearing on 13/02/2014, The PIO has remained present and made oral submission. The Departmental Enquiry against Korgaonkar, regarding which the original RTI question was asked is still incomplete for last 3 years. Appellant has been informed through 1^st sentence of para 2 of the reply dated 04/10/2011.

8) I have gone through the reply of the PIO . It is this seen that this reply has 3 parts

a) I am to inform you that the inquiry is pending before the Inquiry Authority.

3/-

-3-

b) Shri Melvin Vaz, Managing Director, Goa Housing Board was the Enquiry Officer.

c) The applicant should obtain the copy of inquiry report from the Inquiry Authority.

9) I tend to agree with PIO. It is observed that part I of the reply given by PIO had sufficiently given information about the status of the departmental inquiry. Part 2 and 3 seem to be a case of over- enthusiasm and I do not find it right to discourage it.

10) When the case was being heard before me, the appellant agreed with my above observation. He however, expressed his exasperation that an erring Village Panchayat Officer, was put under Departmental Enquiry on the basis of his Complaint, and now the department was allowing the Departmental Enquiry to be dragged, which in effect, denied a real justice to him. He therefore requested for suitable direction to be given to the Director of Panchayat. As the departmental inquiry which was initiated in February 2011 was still pending in February 2014, apparently there is no system of persuasion or stock-taking by the Director, and perhaps the whole department is trying to protect the said Village Panchayat Officer Shri Korgaonkar against whom inquiry was initiated on the complaint of the present appellant himself.

11) On this point, I tend to agree with the appellant. Although it is not within the ambit of the RTI Act to issue direction to the HOD to properly manage the Departmental Enquiry cases initiated in their own departments, looking at the peculiar circumstances of the present case, I cannot refrain from suggesting that the present Director of Panchayat and all his subordinate staff should diligently monitor the Departmental Enquiry cases, especially where the common public is affected by the behaviour of the recalcitrant Officer. The PIO should also be more careful in future. If, to the best of his knowledge, more up-to-date information is available with another officer, then he should himself transfer the RTI application in time under sec 6 (3).

--O R D E R—

The appeal is dismissed as above. Declared in Open Court. This detail order is to be issued for record of the parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Panaji – Goa.