RTI won’t help settle scores

An employee of Road Transport Corporation, M Sharma sought through his RTI applications in February 2014 about his superior officer, to know in which bus depot such officer was appointed as Deputy Manager or Depot Manager in 1985, 1988, 1991, 1992, 2003 & 2007, how many employees have been suspended by him, wherever he has been DM and also number of employees recruited during his tenure. The questions do not end with this as he filed another RTI request to give information on 14 more points against that officer. This employee filed a complaint with several allegations against the same officer along with another.

The Commission finds that the respondent authority was answering all his RTI questions and supplied almost all the information he asked for. The data of suspensions were made available to him. Still he wants the PIO to analyse the suspensions as per his requirement. The PIO contended that he should analyse the information on his own. The Commission found reason in it.

One fact came out of submissions was that this applicant was suspended for some alleged misbehavior. An inquiry was ordered and notice was sent to him. But he preferred not to attend the inquiry but to use RTI springing up multiple information requests, (besides these two). What is the motive and purpose of this information, personal vengeance or public interest? Is there any information left to be given, or will exceptions disentitle him? What are the rights of employee under RTI and under contract of employment?

Every employee has rights to secure his employment but also has duties to perform the job without resorting to misconduct or any other irregularity. The employee also has right to get the copy of complaint, notice, charge sheet and every piece of paper which is relied on against him. He should get the opportunity also to defend himself. At the end he should also get the copy of enquiry report/order/judgment or sentence pronounced along with right of appeal. He has all rights as per principles of natural justice and if there is any lapse, or suppression of information or document or non-supply of papers relied on by the disciplinary authority, he can seek them from the inquiry officer or authority, if not, he can get them under RTI Act.

Any employee facing disciplinary charges does not have any moral or legal right to file plethora of RTI applications seeking information not related to allegation against him, with sole intention to harass the officers who he suspect to have complained or gave evidence or provided information or initiated action against him. If asked so it becomes misuse and that cannot be encouraged. The public interest is an overriding factor in these cases also as per the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. If such multiple RTI actions are allowed the officers at higher level will lose moral authority to initiate action against erring employees and whole system of disciplined administration would crumble. In contra, there is a huge public interest in taking action against the wrongdoing employees, if proved.

Here in this case, the appellant is not even trying to protect his personal right, or right to employment or right to fair trial. But he is unleashing his private vengeance against colleagues or seniors who are either inquiring or informing or complaining or giving evidence against him. Such information would squarely fall under exempted category as per Section 8(h) (‘information which would impede process of investigation or prosecution of offenders’) of RTI Act, 2005 as this would not only impede the investigation or inquiry against him, but also impede the inquiries against all such erring employees who will be immorally encouraged or tempted to use RTI for this private, illegal and vengeful purpose. The RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended employees or those erring personnel facing inquiries to serve their personal interests in protecting their misconduct or preventing the authorities from proceeding with penal proceedings enquiring into misconduct. The RTI is not for these disgruntled employees facing disciplinary proceedings or selfish persons but for the people in general, only in public interest, and never for the private vengeance at all.

If this kind of misuse is not checked, the superior officers will be threatened, demoralized and prevented from proceeding against employees facing charges of misconduct. None would complain/inform/give evidence or no authority would gather courage to initiate enquiry against erring employees even if law authorises them, prescribes it as a duty and situation demands. Such a situation will lead to chaos in administration. In order to check the misuse of RTI for running a parallel enquiry against inquiring officers, this application deserves to be rejected and the appellant, admonished. Following points go against the applicant and lead to rejection of his second appeals.

a) Most of his questions are vexatious and the purpose is to impede investigation or inquiry into charges against the applicant. The RTI questions running parallel to inquiry initiated against the applicant.
b) The information sought are far from relevant to his charges. Sufficient information was furnished in response to his RTI applications.
c) The information not furnished was not held by the public authority in the form asked.
d) The request for analysis by the public authority in the guise of ‘information’ is not ‘informaiton’ as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
e) There is no public interest that warrants the disclosure of information exempted under Section 8(1)(j).
f) Section 8(2) can be invoked in favour of applicant, as there is public interest against disclosure of any information as the RTI applications run parallel to the inquiry initiated.

Considiring this as another case of misuse of RTI Act by the suspended employees who are trying to take vengenace against the Inquiry officer or officers by instituting a parallel interrogatory questionnaire through multiple questions, the Commisison held that sufficient information has been given to the appellant in both the appeals and warns the appellant not to file RTI applications as a counter-measure to inquiry against him. If any such RTI application is filed in future by him or by anybody on this subject, the DTC shall refer to this order and reject the same. The Commission directs that this order has to be prominently displayed in the website and at any conspicuous place in the office under the caption of ‘misuse’ red in color.

By: Madabhushi Sridhar