New Delhi: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has been rapped by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for its "lackadaisical" implementation of the Right to Information Act.
The CVC has also been asked to explain why a penalty should not be imposed for failing to comply with the law.
The Commission directed the CVC to immediately furnish certain information sought by an applicant and issued a show cause notice to the CVC's Director as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him for failing to comply with the provisions of the Act.
Vimal Kishor, an employee of the Patna branch of the NABARD, had filed a complaint with the CIC alleging that the CVC was refusing to furnish him information pertaining to a departmental inquiry launched against him.
According to Kishor, he filed a request under the RTI Act to the CVC Director K L Ahuja to provide him the required information to prove his innocence in the case.
However, it was alleged that Ahuja initially claimed that the file was missing and later stated that he needed concurrence of the Central Vigilance Officer of NABARD to part with the information.
But even four months after the request the CVC failed to comply, following which the Kishor moved the CIC.
"The manner in which the appellate authority have dealt with the request under the RTI Act demonstrate the lackadaiscal attitude of the CVC in implementing the provisions of the Act," Information Commissioner M M Ansari
observed.
Noting that its own letter seeking the CVC's comments on the appeal filed by Kishor was also ignored, the CIC observed, "All this demonstrate a disappointing response of the CVC in fulfilling its mandatory obligations to implement the Act to ensure transparency in its functioning."
Accordingly, the CIC directed the CVC to furnish within 15 days the information sought by Kishor.
The CIC while holding Ahuja guilty of violating the provisions of the Act by not furnishing the information within the stipulated 30 days, directed him to appear before the Commission on July 12 to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him.
Comments
0 comment