Information
commissioners are supposed to be guardians of transparency. However, when it
comes to personal benefit, it is revealed that they can suppress the facts.
When Vilas Patil, then state information
commissioner (SIC) of Nagpur had requested for his transfer to Nasik, High-powered
committee (HPC) had recommended appointment of Bhaskar Patil for SIC at Nagpur
on 15/1/2008. However, when after AG's report it was confirmed that transfer was not possible. Vilas Patil
withdrew his request and HPC sent a revised recommendation on 21/11/2008 to Governor for Bhaskar Patils appointment as
SIC Amravati .It is hard to believe that information commissioners who were transferred
last year were not aware of the facts and Advocate General's (AG ) report in this case. However, conveniently, this fact was suppressed and request of
transfers was made to then newly appointed Chief information commissioner.
Accordingly, he obliged them.
The State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC)
Ratnakar Gaikwad, while transferring three SIC's last year had defied the legal
opinion of AG, that 'A State Information Commissioner can not be transferred unless he
resigns from his present posting.' This was revealed after an official copy of correspondence mentioning AG's report in a similar case few years back was
obtained.
AG's report
about the transfer clearly states that even if the HPC ( comprising Chief
Minister, Deputy Chief Minister & Leader of Opposition in Vidhansabha)
decides to recommend to the Governor transfer on new posting for a SIC, his
resignation from his present posting is essential. Even when this report was in the records of general administration
department and State Information Commission Gaikwad ordered transfers of SIC,
M.H.Shah from Nasik to Pune, Bhaskar Patil from Amravati to Nagpur and
P.W.Patil from Nagpur to Nasik in June 2012 within a week after taking over as SCIC.
Since there is no power vested in SCIC for such transfers in RTI Act 2005, I had then written to the Governor to revoke
these controversial transfers.
The legal opinion in this report has confirmed my contention
that transfers of SIC's by Gaikwad were not as per the law. As per the report
in 2007-08 the SIC Nagpur Vilas Patil had requested to the high power committee
for his transfers to Nasik. The committee under the chairmanship of Chief Minister
accepted his request and sent recommendation of his transfer to the Governor. However,
the governor's office observed that there was no provision of SIC's transfers
in RTI Act, 2005 and ordered for the opinion of law & judiciary department .
In his report submitted to the Government on 14th February 2008 the AG states, 'Minutes of the high power committeeclearly indicate a specific recommendation of commissioner for a specificregion. Committee can change the decision provided he (Vilas Patil) resigns
from his present post. His appointment would be a fresh appointment requiring his
resignation from his post at Nagpur. Neither an amendment nor a partial
notification of the extant notification would serve the purpose.' Following
this complications Patil withdrew his request for transfer.
As per the
minutes of the high power committee each of these three SIC's had been
recommended for a specific region by the committee and the appointment letters signed by the Chief Secretary also indicate their
postings. It is clear that even the high power committee cannot transfer an
SIC then how can CIC order and execute such transfers? SCIC has clearly defied
all authorities and procedures.
In Maharashtra , head office of SIC is at Mumbai and
as per section 15(7) of RTI act commission after approval of state has
established its offices at Pune, Kankan , Brihanmumbai , Amravati, Nasik,
Nagpur and Aurangabad .And Government of Maharashtra by various orders under
the name and order of Governor has created posts of officials' including State
Information commissioner for each office specifically. In addition, Governor
has appointed state information commissions for Amravati, Nagpur, and Nasik by
separate orders .These appointments are for those specific offices only. My contention
was, when Governor appoints SIC on recommendation of HPC for specific post.
Then nobody can relieve him from that post unless his term ends, he attains age
of 65 years, resigns, or removed from the post of SIC under any of the
provision of RTI act.
Now that as all the three information commissioners
have vacated posts they were duly appointed on and joined other offices. As per
AG's report, these should be considered new appointments. However, for this
post not the HPC has recommended their names or Governor has not approved it.
Then what is the status of these
information commissioners and what is the validity of decisions they have
given?
Talking to media on this subject state chief
information commissioner has said "Please ask these activists who is
otherwise empowered?".(for transfers of SIC's) However, there is no need
to ask ctivist or anyody. The Advocate General's report is there in state
information commissions' office .And Governor, HPC as well as state information
commission have already taken stand according to that opinion. Now if this
report has become irrelevant, please let the people of Maharashtra know, how,
when and why it became irrelevant? And let SCIC state who is the authority in legal matters
SCIC or Advocate General?
