Once the unfairness of a decision is established, the victim of such decision is entitled to know as to who all participated in its making – Central Excise officer wins case against vigilance in CIC
This is the story of a second appeal by an officer of the Customs and Central Excise department before the CIC.
The DG, Vigilance conducted a discreet enquiry based on some anonymous complaint against the appellant. And based on the enquiry, he was transferred from Bhopal to Shillong in 2005. He successfully challenged this order in the Jabalpur High Court which passed strictures against the government.
It is the appellant’s belief that he was grievously wronged and, his pride hurt, due to what he considers, machinations of certain officers who were allegedly discomfited by the appellant’s crusading zeal to protect public revenue. Now having been vindicated by a Court decision, he wants to know who all were responsible for his victimization and especially the names of those who conducted the discreet enquiry against him and those who provided evidence against him.
The appeal is against the orders of the DG, Vigilance declining to disclose the information requested by the appellant.
The requested information was:-
1. Copy of the complaint and inquiry report thereon.
2. Name of the Inquiry Officer and all the persons who gave adverse comments against me along with copy of their comments.
3. Copy of the provisions under which inquiry can be conducted without giving opportunity of hearing to the person complained against.
4. Inspection of the file under which inquiry was conducted
The Commission observed,
1. It is difficult not to sympathize with the appellant.
2. He feels a deep sense of hurt which seems to drive him to unmask those who allegedly conspired against him.
3. There is also a certain sense of helplessness which stems from a feeling, that despite a favourable, strongly worded Court order, he cannot know as to who the people were who were allegedly used the tool of a discreet enquiry to inflict on him, what he considers, humiliation and mental agony.
4. His passion seems to be of a man wronged.
So the Commission emphatically held,
The Court decision and the language employed in giving that decision lend credence to the allusion that the appellant was wronged. This also brings up an equally important issue of governance? When acknowledgedly there is unfair decision–making, should those, whose actions led to such decision being made, still enjoy the protection of Section 8(1)(g). In my view, the answer is ‘NO’. Once the unfairness of a decision is established, the victim of such decision is entitled to know as to who all participated in its making. Allowing the veil of anonymity to prevent disclosure of their identities is counter to good governance, as it breeds mistrust, suspicion and dents the fair image of the public authority, who must not only be fair to its employees, it must also appear so.
The CIC further observed,
In matters such as this when an employee has been vindicated as having been victim of unjustified action, even mala-fides, the public authority should boldly and voluntarily disclose to the employee the identities of those whose findings caused the public authority to take action which not only failed judicial scrutiny, it also invited strictures.
Finally the Commission allowing the appeal finally ordered
The CPIO is directed to allow the appellant, within two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order, to inspect the files / note files / documents / records related to his case and allow him to take such extracts / certified copies as he may wish.