M. Sridhar Acharyulu DECISION
M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
1. The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. M.S. Premi, AO/PIO, Mr. Ajeet Tyagi.
Background
CIC/SA/A/2015/000847
2. Contentions of Appellant: Appellant is a specialist doctor in General Medicine. In addition to his regular service to patients, he was given responsibility as purchase officer on 15.2.2013. The purchase committee of the Hospital has taken unanimous decision at a meeting held on 16.3.2013 to purchase the photocopier machine model 5002SP. There was no dissent. Medical Superintendent Dr Ashok Jaiswal, on 31.3.2013 has approved the recommendation of the purchase committee and issued sanction order. On 29.3.2011 a circular was issued enhancing delegated financial powers making it compulsory to take financial sanction leading to limiting the powers of purchase.
3. A circular was issued by the DoHFW on 5.11.2013 referring to earlier circular dated 30.9.2013 which advised Medical Superintendents/Directors of the Health Department to refrain from incurring expenditure without prior approval of the competent authority. It also warned departmental action and entry into ACRs if this directive was not followed. It reiterated all HoDs/MSs & Accounts functionaries working in hospitals...advised again that incurring expenditure or liability involving expenditure without the approval of the Competent Authority is expressly against the rules and financial propriety, and such lapses must be strictly avoided... In another paragraph All MSs and HoDs are advised to strictly adhere to this rule. at the end of the circular once against stated "non-compliance of this will be viewed seriously and may invite appropriate departmental action including adverse entry in the ACR.
4. Special Secretary (H&FW) SB Shashank issued a show cause notice on 10.6.2013 to Members of Purchase Committee through Medical Superintendent (MS). The contents of show cause notice pointed out sanction accorded by MS at his level for which he was not competent, members of purchase committee so constituted for this purpose did not point out about the competence of authority, due to this lapse on the part of members of purchase committee, the bill was prepared and presented to PAO.
5. Head of Office Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal issued a memorandum on 19.9.2013 directing Dr Avinash Purchase Officer and Shri Anand Kumar, Senior Accounts Officer to furnish explanation. On the same day Dr Avinash was asked to hand over charge of purchase officer with immediate effect to Dr Kanhar.
6. Mr. Nutan Guha Biswas, Principal Secretary to Lt Governor sent a note on 4.8.14, stating: "The matter was examined in this secretariat and submitted to Hon'ble Lt Governor for orders. Hon'ble Lt Governor approved the Department of Health & FW to submit the proposal for initiating Disciplinary Proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 against all the members of Purchase Committee and the concerned MS of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for the irregular purchase of the High End Photocopier (Model Aficio MP 5002SP) through Directorate of Vigilance.
7. Appellant alleged that though Lt Governor approved disciplinary action against Purchase Committee members and MS only but his name was also included by the accused officers to harass him.
8. Appellant by his RTI application dated 12.3.2015 (No.000802) asked the Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, GNCTD: "Please provide certified photocopy of file noting and proposal approved by Hon'ble Lt Governor, in which initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against all members of purchase committee and the concerned medical superintendent of Aruna Asif Hospital for the irregular purchasing of High End photocopier machine is ordered". Having received no information, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached the Commission. Appellant claimed that PIO and FAA are habitual in not providing reply for his RTIs. He sought information and imposition of penalty against PIO.
9. He also wanted a certified copy of the note of Principal Secretary Health forwarded proposing disciplinary action against appellant (himself) only during July 2014. He believes no such order was given.
10. The appellant Dr. Avinash Kumar alleged that he has lodged written complaints against the corruption prevalent in the Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital at least in ten cases and because of that he became target of harassment.
11. The appellant Dr. Avinash Kumar on 1.8.2013 made a written complaint to Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, alleging corruption against the CMO, NSFG and Chairman Medical Board stating that since three years he was indulged in corrupt activity but no action was being taken in spite of several complaints coming from people in general. He wrote 13 points explaining the wide spread corruption in Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital relating to sanitary service, purchase contracts, outsource sanitation and house-keeping services. Detailed information of corruption in ten cases. (See Annexure 1 Complaint made to CVC and Annexure 2 for summary of ten cases of corruption in Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital submitted to CVC by complainant). Then the complaint of appellant went through different offices---Chief Secretary Delhi-Principal Secretary, Health and reached Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. The appellant complained that CVC did not bother to secure his name and disclosed it to the officers of the AAA Hospital against whom he complained.
12. The CVC wrote a letter (Annexure 3) to appellant on 13.8.2013 stating that under Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informer Resolution(PIDPI), the complainant has to confirm that he has actually sent the complaint within 30 days in an envelope which must be superscribed "Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informer Resolution PIDPIO" without giving his name and address.
13. Dr. Avinash Kumar on 28.8.2013 complained to Secretary CVC, that the letter (under Annexure 4) written by CVC has landed in office of MS, AAAGH, instead of being received by him only. He also stated that he was called in to chambers of MS and was questioned for complaining. He said that after this the MS went on telling officers to be careful as I have complained to CVC, then he was defamed and harassed.
14. As a reward for this disclosure the himself was not only relieved of his duties of purchase officer but also was transferred to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpur, Delhi by order dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure 5) which is far off from his residence, to harass him. Everybody including CVC and MS of AAAGH have violated the principle of not disclosing identity of the complainant.
15. Appellant further explained: "Then a Five-member Committee was constituted to probe into disclosed charges by the appellant and also on charges made by Kranti Kari Sugharsh Manch which completed its inquiry on 8.5.2013. The LG Office ordered action within 24 hours. In pursuance of the same, Dr Ashok Jaiswal, MS was transferred to BR Ambedkar Hospital (500 beds) hospital and Dr. Surendra Singh to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital (200 beds). It is something like promotion. Dr Amit Sharma was retained in Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital only. The report is forwarded to Director Vigilance seeking prior sanction to facilitating to continue the same activity, initiate action against Dr. Ashok Jaiswal, Dr. SB Srivastava, former MS, Dr Surender Singh and Dr Amit Sharma, from Chief Secretary, Delhi. Director Vigilance sends the report to Principal Secretary Health for disciplinary action and also for lodging complaint before ACB. The Principal Secretary Health sent it to MS Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital. Dr SK Sharma, MS has lodged complaint at ACB. Another FIR was filed against corruption in AAAGH in Karnataka (Annexure-6). Then a file containing papers about transactions worth more than Rs. 1.5 Crore went missing, regarding which the MS filed FIR in Civil Lines Delhi"(Annexure-7).
16. The issue raised in the complaint is that he is being made scapegoat for implementing orders of Purchase Committee, as approved by Medical Superintendent, to purchase photocopier in spite of economic ban since 2011. If the Office memorandum and notifications are read carefully, the ban applies against the Medical Superintendent, Heads of Department, Accounts functionaries, but not to those who simply carry out instructions or comply with the recommendation/resolution of purchase committee as approved by the Medical Superintendent. If at all anybody to be responsible for that purchase, it appears, it is the MS and Members of Purchase Committee. There appears to be truth in the contention of appellant that certain bigwigs are trying to help the top officers involved in corrupt activities including purchase of photocopier and to save them the officer who complained is being victimized. As per the law and policy of Government of India, the appellant/complainant cannot be victimized for whistle blowing.
17. From the nature of complaints made by Dr Avinash Kumar, it is clear that he is a whistle blower. The way he was relieved of the responsibility of purchase officer immediately and the others continued on their respective positions without any remark shows the unity of other officers against one doctor, obviously because he has complained against the corruption.
Whistle Blowers Protection
18. Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011, notified in 2014 provides a mechanism to investigate alleged corruption and misuse of power by public servants. It encourages anybody to question the wrongdoing of any form of fraud, corruption or mismanagement. The Act seeks to protect whistle blowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offense by a public servant. This Act is made due to demand by civil society after several incidents of threat or harassment to whistle blowers such as Satyendra Dubey, who was killed in 2003, for blowing whistle in a corruption case in the National Highway Authority of India's Golden Quadrilateral Project. Irony is that complainant requested not to reveal his identity, but the letter including that request was sent to the officer against whom Dubey made allegations. Later, he was brutally killed. When accused gets the complaint and knows the whistle blower, it is quite possible that corrupt would turn criminal also.
19. Indian Oil Corporation Officer Shanumughan Manjunath was murdered for expressing corruption that led to sealing petrol pump that was selling adulterated fuel. A Karnataka official SP Mahantesh was also a whistle-blower regarding controversial land allotments by societies. He was murdered in May 2012. Mahantesh was working as Deputy Director of the audit wing in the state's Cooperative department and had reported the irregularities in different societies involving some officials and political figures. A senior police officer alleged that Mayawati's government was corrupt and had embezzled large amounts of money. Shortly thereafter, he was sent to a psychiatric hospital.
20. In August 2013, a Supreme Court bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Arjan Kumar Sikri ruled that identity of whistleblower can never be revealed to the accused facing prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
21. In the recent times, media reported about harassment meted out to IFS officer, Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi who won prestigious Raman Magsaysay award in July 2015. He caused FIR to be registered against contractors involved in the construction of Hansi Butana canal. He questioned the contractors for illegal tree felling and poaching hog deer in the Saraswati Wildlife Sanctuary. Mr. Sanjiv was reprimanded and transferred to Fatehabad. In August 2007, Mr. Sanjiv was suspended, though the Haryana Forest Department started prosecution against the contractors, based on earlier reports filed by him. He complained to the President of India and the Ministry of Environment & Forests in 2010 about irregular transfers and fabricated charge-sheets being filed against him. This led to an inquiry committee being constituted by the Central government to look into the allegations, which recommended CBI inquiry holding there was prima-facie there are very strong evidences against CM office. The case was later sent by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to the Central Vigilance Commission, which referred it to CBI, which found it to be worthy of an "independent probe." Ministry advised Haryana Government to register FIR and transfer case to CBI. But state refused, but preferred allegation against Mr. Sanjiv of dereliction of duty and did not relieve him though he was proposed to be taken to Centre on deputation. The Ministry had to directly relieve him to enable him to join All India Institute of Medical Sciences as a Chief Vigilance Officer. Still Haryana government served him charge-sheet alleging misuse of funds and bogus plantation in Jhajjar. This scam was reported by Sanjiv Chaturvedi that led to suspension of nine officers.
22. He filed a petition in Supreme Court alleging that "during all these years, the petitioner submitted many representations before the State Government... but not even a single representation was decided by the State Government, and that he is asking for a CBI inquiry because actions of the Haryana government were "arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and malafide that led to a series of violations of service and environmental laws, and also the harassment of the petitioner for a continuous period of around seven years."
23. After this several FIRs were filed and criminal cases registered against him. He also faced four inquiries by the Vigilance Bureau. He was transferred 12 times in Haryana. His in-laws filed dowry case against him, and his marriage ended in divorce. It is reported that his ex-wife was persuaded to believe that he sought the transfers to avoid her. In 2009, a case was registered against him for misuse of funds and bogus plantation in Jhajjar district - this was the same case which had exposed corruption in, leading to suspension of nine officers. (http://www.tehelka.com/2012/12/whistle-blower-sanjiv-chaturvedi-moves-sc-demanding-cbi-inquiry/)
24. Sanjiv Chaturvedi was conferred the Raman Magasaysay award for Emergent Leadership. The citation says "He is being recognized for his exemplary integrity, courage and tenacity in uncompromisingly exposing and painstakingly investigating corruption in public office, and his resolute crafting of program and system improvements to ensure that government honorably serves the people of India," the board of trustees of the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation (RMAF)release said on July 29, 2015. Revealing identity of whistle blower will endanger his life.
25. In Manjit Singh Khera v State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court, in August 2013 has ruled that identity of persons who tip off anti-corruption agencies about corrupt deals of bureaucrats can never be revealed to the accused facing prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act. Anti-Corruption Bureau of Maharashtra had investigated a case of disproportionate assets against a public servant on the basis of a complaint filed by "unknown person" and charge-sheeted the accused. The accused wanted a copy of the original complaint on the ground that it was essential for a fair trial. The Supreme Court bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri rejected it saying it failed to see how the accused was prejudiced by non-disclosure of the name of the person who sent the complaint and the original copy of the complaint received by the ACB. "Situations are many where certain persons do not want to disclose the identity as well as the information/complaint passed on by them to the ACB. If the names of the persons, as well as the copy of the complaint sent by them are disclosed, that may cause embarrassment to them and sometimes threat to their lives," said Justice Radhakrishnan, who authored the judgment for the bench. The bench said what is to be borne in mind is that it was a complaint given by some person to the ACB which triggered the investigation. "Thus, this complaint simply provided information to the ACB and is not the foundation of the case or even the FIR," it said.
26. On the case in hand, the bench said, "In fact, (after receiving the complaint) the ACB held its own independent investigation into the matter and collected the material which was forwarded to the home department and on that basis, challan (chargesheet) was filed in the court pointing out that sufficient material emerged on record as a result of the said investigation to proceed against the petitioner under PC Act." The ACB had accused Manjeet Singh Khera of having huge movable and immovable property in Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur. Khera had wanted a copy of the original complaint to be produced in the court as well as the name of the person who had sent that complaint.
27. Another major principal laid down in this case was that non-disclosure of complaint's identity will not affect fair trial. The bench, while dismissing Khera's petition, said, "We are of the opinion that non-supply of the complaint or contents thereof, do not, at all, violate the principle of fair trial. The said complaint has no relevancy in the context of this prosecution and in no manner, it would prejudice the petitioner." (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-Cant-tell-accused-who-whistle-blower-is/articleshow/21987081.cms). The Supreme Court was right in denying this information, which proved fatal in case of Satyendra Kumar Dubey.
28. Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act also exempts the disclosure which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
Who is whistle blower/Complainant?:
29. According to Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2011, Section 3(c) "complainant" means any person who makes a complaint relating to disclosure under this Act;(d) "disclosure" means a complaint relating to,--
"(i) an attempt to commit or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
(ii) wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion by virtue of which demonstrable loss is caused to the Government or demonstrable wrongful gain accrues to the public servant or to any third party;
(iii) attempt to commit or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant, made in writing or by electronic mail or electronic mail message, against the public servant and includes public interest disclosure referred to in sub-section (2) of section 4;"
30. Section 4 explains what is the disclosure and how the disclosure in public interest has to be protected.
"4.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, any public servant or any other person including any non-governmental organisation, may make a public interest disclosure before the Competent Authority.
(2) Any disclosure made under this Act shall be treated as public interest disclosure for the purposes of this Act and shall be made before the Competent Authority and the complaint making the disclosure shall, on behalf of the Competent Authority, be received by such authority as may be specified by regulations made by the Competent Authority.
(3) Every disclosure shall be made in good faith and the person making disclosure shall make a personal declaration stating that he reasonably believes that the information disclosed by him and allegation contained therein is substantially true.
(4) Every disclosure shall be made in writing or by electronic mail or electronic mail message in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed and contain full particulars and be accompanied by supporting documents, or other materials, if any.
(5) The Competent Authority may, if it deems fit, call for further information or particulars from the person making the disclosure.
(6) No action shall be taken on public interest disclosure by the Competent Authority if the disclosure does not indicate the identity of the complainant or public servant making public interest disclosure or the identity of the complainant or public servant is found incorrect or false."
31. Section 5 says the name of disclosure shall be concealed.
"5.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Competent Authority shall, on receipt of a public interest disclosure under section 4,--
(a) ascertain from the complainant or the public servant whether he was the person or the public servant who made the disclosure or not;
(b) conceal the identity of the complainant unless the complainant himself has revealed his identity to any other office or authority while making public interest disclosure or in his complaint or otherwise.
(2) The Competent Authority shall, upon receipt of the complaint and concealing the identity of the complainant, or the public servant in the first instance, make discreet inquiry, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed, to ascertain whether there is any basis for proceeding further to investigate the disclosure.
(3) If the Competent Authority, either as a result of the discreet inquiry, or on the basis of the disclosure itself without any inquiry, is of the opinion that the disclosure requires to be investigated, it shall seek comments or explanation or report from the Head of the Department of the organisation or authority, board or corporation concerned or office concerned within such time as may be specified by it."
32. Section 11 provided safeguards against victimization of the complainant.
"11. (1) The Central Government shall ensure that no person or a public servant who has made a disclosure under this Act is victimised by initiation of any proceedings or otherwise merely on the ground that such person or a public servant had made a disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act.
(2) If any person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the ground that he had filed a complaint or made disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act, he may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in the matter, and such authority shall take such action, as deemed fit and may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority, as the case may be, to protect such person from being victimised or avoid his victimisation: Provided that the Competent Authority shall, before giving any such direction to the public authority or public servant, give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and the public authority or public servant, as the case may be:
Provided further that in any such hearing, the burden of proof that the alleged action on the part of the public authority is not victimisation, shall lie on the public authority.
33. Thus the law requires that the whistle blower can make public interest disclosures/complaints, his name should not be revealed, he also should not be victimized by public authority, and it is the burden of Public Authority to prove that it was not victimising the whistle blower.
34. On 20.11.2014 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recalled its order dated 15th September, 2014 relating to IA 73 of 2014. The order dated 15th Sept 2014 demanded that the petitioners in a matter relating to the corruption scandals being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) disclose the name of the whistleblower who supplied the contents of the guest entry register maintained at the residence of the CBI Director. Some apprehensions were expressed about the order to disclose the name of the whistleblower as that would cause serious physical risk to whistle blower. Order dated 20th November came as a relief to anonymous whistle blower. Though it was not specifically permitted anonymous whistle blowing, it can also be perceived as an indication from the apex court that the disclosure of the identity of a whistleblower is relatively not important if the information about an offence or wrongdoing he/she supplies is credible enough to proceed with for further action.
35. In Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K. Jain, MANU/SC/0593/2010 : (1010) 8 SCC 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained who whistle blower is: A whistle blower is a person who raises a concern about the wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. Usually this person would be from that same organization. The revealed misconduct maybe classified in many ways: for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violation and corruption. Whistle blowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues)." The Hon'ble Supreme Court (Surinder Singh Nijjar and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.) in Manoj H. Mishra v Union of India & Ors civil appeal of 2013 arising out of SLP(C) No. 9126 of 2010, decided on April 9, 2013, further explained '..one of the basic requirements of a person being accepted as whistle blower is that his primary motive for the activity should be in furtherance of public good. In other words, the activity has to be undertaken in public interest, exposing illegal activities of a public organization or authority. The conduct of the appellant, in our opinion, does not fall within the high moral or ethical standard that would be required of a bona fide "whistle blower"
36. The appellant in this case levelled serious allegations against officers of Health Department in which he was working. His exposure of corruption was not through media but by proper representation to appropriate authority. Thus the appellant in this case is a whistle blower, whose identity should have been protected. But that complaint has been forwarded to that officer only. He is not demanding for providing separate protection to him as the whistle blower. Concealing his name itself would have protected him. It could have been sufficient if his name was not revealed. Unfortunately it was not done. This generally creates a serious personal security threat to whistle blower. Instead of concealing, their names and addresses are revealed to those persons against whom they complained. In this case, in similar circumstances of revealing his identity to the accused, the harassment of the complainant started and further intensified. In spite of several instances of killing whistle blowers, a legislation being passed to secure the name, and Supreme Court's order not to reveal the name of the complainant to the accused, the name of whistle blower/appellant is revealed to the officer complained against in this case. His transfer and initiating disciplinary action against him, are indications of harassment and victimisation of whistle blower/appellant. The public authorities should have avoided this. By not doing so, some of public servants have shown their solidarity against complaining officer.
CIC/SA/A/2015/000802
37. Appellant also sought from Department of Health & Family Welfare, Delhi following information.
"1. Please provide the details of all the irregularities noted by H&FW Department against Dr. Avinash Kumar in purchase of Photocopier machine.
2. Please enumerate all the rules/law/circular/guidelines, if violated by Dr. Avinash Kumar and identified by H&FW Dept. in purchase of photocopier machine.
3. Please provide detail of actions ordered to MS, AAAGH to initiate against Dr. Avinash Kumar and also taken by H&FW deptt against Dr. Avinash Kumar till date.
4. Please provide copy of all the orders/memos/circulars issued to doctors of Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital including Dr. Avinash Kumar regarding so called irregularities of purchase of photocopier machine till date.
5. Please provide certified photocopy of the file noting of Purchase of Photocopier machine forwarded by Pr. Secretary Health, H&FW Deptt to Hon'ble Lt Governor of Delhi for action against Dr. Avinash Kumar.
6. Please provide certified copy of approval of Hon'ble Lt. Governor ordered for disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 against all members of purchase committee Medical Superintendent of AAAGH and Dr. Avinash Kumar.
7. Please confirm about the payment of photocopier machine is made to the supplier of the firm or not till date.
8. Please provide copy of guidelines for work function and responsibilities or purchase officer and purchase committee."
38. PIO claimed that information sought does not fall within his jurisdiction and transferred it to PIO of the Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital on 18.3.15. He filed first appeal before first appellate authority FAA of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, but there was no response from FAA.
39. From the papers, contentions and detailed hearing, the Commission finds it's a case of harassment of a whistle blower officer by the others in Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital and support extended by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Delhi with silence, inaction and non-response besides wrongful transfer of the RTI application to the Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital.
40. Appellant Mr. Avinash Kumar was a purchase officer, who has to executive the orders of Purchase Committee. Earlier to that He has blown the whistle against the corruption prevalent in Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital. Then his harassment began. The appellant submitted that in 2013 he got involved with the purchase committee for purchase of one photo copier. The Purchase Committee included one of the members from the finance department. When the invoice was sent to Mr. Premi who was Accounts Officer and PIO, it was forwarded to the Finance Department for payment. But the Finance Department refused payment saying that the said photocopier was a banned item. Instead of taking action against persons responsible for the wrongful decision to purchase the photo copier, the authorities have issued a show cause notice to Avinash Kumar, the appellant.
41. In this connection he wanted the relevant orders/note sheet by which Lt. Governor's orders were issued. In response to this, the respondent officer submitted that the relevant file is with the Vigilance Department of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
42. It is sad that in spite of complaint, whistle blowing, internal inquiry and registration of FIRs against corruption in Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, so far no action was taken, except transferring the whistle blower to a far off place to harass him, while sending two doctors to bigger hospitals with more purchasing powers etc as if they are promoted. In the process both public authorities are violating the provisions of Whistle Blower Protection Act and Right to Information Act, which will encourage corrupt officers to increase their activity at different places in more intensified manner.
43. Hence, the Commission directs:
"i) The public authority to ensure that appellant whistle blower is not victimized or harassed anymore,
ii) Cause an inquiry into alleged harassment and victimization of the appellant whistleblower,
iii) The PIO of Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital and PIO of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, GNCTD Delhi to coordinate between themselves and, to (a) furnish a certified copy of inquiry report submitted by five member committee, (b) give certified copy of FIRs registered in this case so far, (c) give action taken report on the inquiry report, and (d) give certified copy of file notings pertaining to purchase of photocopier machine,
iv) To show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed for inordinate delay and harassment of the appellant in furnishing information, and
v) To show cause why compensation cannot be paid to the appellant/complainant, (within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order).
vi) To explain what action was initiated against those officers for harassment/victimization of whistle blower/appellant in this case."
44. The Commission, directs Mr. Kulbhushan Goel, Vigilance Department/Dy. MS/deemed PIO, to provide certified copy of relevant file papers to the appellant within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission orders accordingly in both the above appeals.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.