Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/08/00152
Dated February 20, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr.Ratan H.Vasnani
Name of the Public Authority : Central Council for Research in
Ayurveda & Siddha
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application dt.8.5.08 with the CPIO, CCRAS. He
requested for the following information:
i) Whether the Council has obtained first stage of advice of CVC as per
provision of CCS (CCA) Rules before issuing a charge sheet to the applicant
vide Council’s Memorandum No.F.2-3/2000-CCRAS/Vig./Vol.IV dt.8.1.03
ii) When CCS (CCA) Rules permit to enclose a copy of first stage of
advice of CVC along with the charge sheet for employee’s information, why
the Council did not follow this procedure and violated the provision of CCS
(CCA) Rules
iii) If the first stage of advice of CVC was obtained by the Council, the
same may be made available.
The PIO replied on 21.5.08 stating that the Council had obtained first stage
advice from the CVC before initiating disciplinary proceedings in the Fraud
and Embezzlement case occurred in the Central Research Institute (Ay.),
Jaipur and enclosed the copy of the same. The applicant filed an appeal
dt.30.6.08 with the Appellate Authority stating that the PIO has not provided
information with regard to point (ii) of his RTI application. The Appellate
Authority replied on 8.8.08 stating that the relevant file dealing with the case
does not indicate reasons for non-supplying 1st stage advice to charged
official. Not satisfied with the reply, the applicant filed a second appeal
dt.1.12.08 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on February 20, 2009.
3. Mr. Laxmi Kanta Ganguli, Admn. Officer & CPIO represented the Public
Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant wanted to know the reasons for
not providing a copy of the first stage advice of the CVC to him along with the
charge sheet which was served upon him. He stated that he went through
the files but could not find any letter or file notings giving the reasons why
the advice was not furnished along with the charge sheet. However,
subsequently the first stage advice was given to the Appellant on 21.5.08.
The Respondent further stated that the CVC guidelines do not make it
mandatory for providing the first or second stage advice to the charge
sheeted official, along with the charge sheet and the Appellant was informed
accordingly. The Respondent also added that the appeal to the Appellate
Authority regarding his punishment has finally been disposed off and the
appellant has been found guilty and been informed about the outcome of the
appeal.
6. Since information has already been provided, the appeal is accordingly
disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Mr.Ratan H.Vasnani
H.No.3, Thha – 27
Housing Board
Shastri Nagar
Jaipur 302 016
2. The CPIO
CCRAS
JLNBCEHAB
No.61-65, Institutional Area
Opp ‘D’ Block
Janakpuri
New Delhi 110 058
3. The Appellate Authority
CCRAS
JLNBCEHAB
No.61-65, Institutional Area
Opp ‘D’ Block
Janakpuri
New Delhi 110 058
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC