The Tamil Nadu Information Commission has directed two senior officials of the Chennai Corporation — superintending engineer K. Vijay Kumar and executive engineer/public information officer (PIO) M. Victor Gnanaraj — to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them for not sharing details sought by a petitioner under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Passing orders on a petition filed by Jayaram Venkatesan of Arappor Iyakkam, a voluntary anti-corruption movement, State Information Commissioner G. Murugan said the PIO had not shown any respect for the Commission’s order, failing to comply with its directive to part with information called for by the petitioner.
‘Third party’
Mr. Venkatesan had on July 31, 2018, filed an application under the RTI Act, seeking information on tender package, including list of roads, evaluation statement for bid, competitive statement etc., from the PIO, Bus Route Roadways Department, Chennai Corporation.
While providing just the list of roads, the PIO stated in his reply that other details could not be shared under the Act, since the petitioner was a “third party”.
Aggrieved over this, he appealed to the first appellate authority and then the Tamil Nadu Information Commission for appropriate orders.
After hearing both sides, Mr. Murugan directed the PIO to appear in person and handover details requested by the petitioner. When the public authority made a mention that the files were in possession of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) for investigation in a case, the Commission instructed that copies be obtained from the agency on the basis of its order.
However, after the public authority failed to provide the information without any valid reason, the petitioner sought appropriate action against the officials.
Following this, Mr. Murugan directed the PIO, Mr. Victor Gnanaraj, to explain why a penalty of ₹25,000 should not levied on him under Section 20(1) of the Act. He also asked him to explain why departmental action under Section 20(2) of the Act should not be taken for refusing information.
The Commission invoked Section 19(6) of the Act to call for explanation from superintending engineer Vijay Kumar on why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for dereliction of duty.
Mr. Venkatesan said he had petitioned for the details of the tender because the contractor who laid bus roads had quoted less for the estimated work, and after getting award of the contract he had introduced new work, that resulted in the total cost exceeding the market value. “This irregularity was pointed out by the Controller and Auditor General in the 2016-17 report. Similar deviations in the laying of bus road works, worth ₹400 crore, seem to have happened...we have also lodged a complaint with the DVAC and the matter is under investigation,” he said.
