RTI activists seek permission of government to prosecute Finance Secretariat officials for forging and tampering with official records

The Right to Information Protection Forum (RIPF), a registered forum of civil rights activists, has sought permission of the Chief Secretary to prosecute the officials of Finance Dept including Sri. Joce Cyriac, Principal Secretary (Finance), now Additional Chief Secretary, under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, for forging and tampering the official records of the disposal file leading to ‘one rank one pension’ government orders issued in G.O (P) 180/2006/Fin. dated 18-4-2006.

On an RTI application with the Public Information Officer of Finance Dept. it is found that 116 pages from the current file section are seen removed and the remaining pages re-numbered with blue sketch pen, which did not match with the Note File of the disposal.

“The Cabinet decisions are communicated only in the form of Government Orders.” A note is written by a secretariat official to facilitate the disposal of a Govt. Order, which may contain a precise of proposals and suggestions made in the current file, regarding the course of action and final orders passed thereon. In file processing the opinions and suggestions contained in the notes shall be reflected in the current file.There is an intrincical complementary relatioship to both the note file and current file.

Though the Note file has 1 to 17 paragraphs in action, only the action taken documents as per paragraph 17, i.e. the e-records (electronic-records) of the approved G.O signed by the then Finance Secretary (in-charge) alone is available in the disposal file and the same is only match with the Current File (Correspondence File) and the Note File. All other corresponding documents (116 pages) with reference to paras 1 to 16 of the note file have been removed or destroyed.

Neither the 1st draft put up on 8-3-06 nor the final draft put up on 13-4-06 revised by Principal Secretary (Finance) are available with the current file section and either the minutes of the high level meetings convened by the Principal Secretary (Finance) or its deliberations are removed from the disposal file, on a comparison with the Note File, which reveals that forgery in official file has been committed. On an appeal under RTI Act with the State Information Commission, it has been observed that the 116 pages removed from the file are part and parcel of the file and the same do not be removed.

The advent of IT and e-governance has changed the mode of working of almost all the spheres of governmental business. Almost all the drafts are in e-records (electronic – records). Section 6 of the IT Act recognizes use of e-records. Section 7 of the Act provides for retention of e-records.
The term e-records, with reference to information means any information generated, sent, received or stored in a computer memory. So an e-record is not prone to tampering unlike paper based records.So the public authorities have committed a criminal offence.

RTI Act Jerks the State Information Commission (SIC)

The division bench of SIC consisting of 3 information commissioners namely Sri. Palat Mohandas, Sri. P. Fazaludeen and Sri. V.V. Giri, on 7-11-2006 considered the RTI appeal No.99/2006 relating to suppression of very valuable facts and furnishing misleading, incorrect and incomplete information by the public authorities of State Finance Department.

The important finding of the division bench is that the authorities have misled the appellant by suppressing 116 pages of official records which are part and parcel of the file, and tampering of remaining pages. (The remaining pages from 117 are re-numbered in blue sketch pen scoring original page numbers marked in ink). SIC had also held that both the Note file and the Correspondence file should match and any pages found missing in the correspondence file would render the information incomplete. So the Commission has given directions to the Public Authorities of Finance Department to give access to full text of the file including the missing 116 pages within a week to the appellant, if not the Commission will exercise its penal clause under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. (Vide - minutes of the 35th meeting of SIC held at 10.30 AM on 7-11-2006 under item No. 148 in Appeal No. 99/2006/SIC, obtained from File No. 2680/SIC-Gen/2006 under RTI Act by paying the required fees) Even then Finance Dept. has given misleading information and the set of 116 pages, stated to be the part files of the original file, kept in a separate bundle, proved that they are fake documents. These unauthenticated e-records, stated to be the part of the Current File did not match with the Note File of the disposal.

Sri. Palat Mohandas IAS, an ex-bureaucrat and the Public authority Sri. Jose Cyriac IAS, a bureaucrat in power has colluded, coupled with malafide intention and discarded the provisions of RTI Act. Sri. Palat Mohandas has ignored the Division Bench findings of such violations and authorised Sri. P.N. Vijayakumar; another Information Commissioner, who hasn’t heard either the petitioner or the respondents on 7-11-2006, to adjudicate the said appeal.

To an enquiry by RIPF about the Rules of Procedure adopted for disposal of appeals by a Single Bench / Division Bench / Full Bench of the Commission, the Secretary as per his letter No. 7554/SIC-PIO/2007 dated 28-12-2007 informed that the Commission has not issued any Rules of Procedure or work distribution among the Information Commissioners. But such decisions available with the partly finished web site: ‘www.infokerala.org.in’ of the Commission reveals that there are such rules of procedure and work distribution. So the Commission is lying and has given false and misleading information to RIPF.

The CIC is not supposed to change the fundamentals of RTI Act; but he has illegally jacked up the enquiry proceedings of SIC to fatten the bureaucracy. Such kind of collusion will do incalculable harm to citizenry rights, as already pointed out to the Governor by the then Leader of Opposition during the selection process of an ex- bureaucrat as the CIC. There is enough evidence and materials on record which justifies an enquiry by His Excellency the Governor of Kerala, under section 17 of RTI Act about the functioning of the State Chief Information Commissioner.

Such kind of illegal action by the SCIC has forced us to form RIPF (Right to Information protection Forum) Kerala.

Please share your ideas as we are planning to move the court on the deliberate shielding of the corrupt by the highest level and such persons should be pulled up for their misconduct.

Kerala State Chief Information Commissioner and the RTI Act, 2005

A member of RIPF has had the opportunity to verify, under RTI Act, the file leading to the appointment of State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), as per the communication of Government letter No. 36680/Cdn.5/07/GAD dated 5-5-2007. According to this file, His Excellency the Governor has first rejected the nomination of Sri. Palat Mohandas as SCIC because of the dissenting opinion of the then Oppossition Leader Sri. V.S. Achuthanandan, and returned the file to the then Chief Minister. Documentary evidence to prove that the Leader of Opposition had been consulted in appointing the SCIC as laid down in RTI Act, is not available in the Govt. File. If someone goes to the court of law and questions the validity of his appointment what will be his fate?

In G.O (P) No. 367/05/GAD dated 10-10-2005 Govt. decided to constitute the ‘State Information Commission’ and the then Chief Secretary Sri. Palat Mohandas IAS was appointed as the Special Officer (in-charge) for submitting necessary proposals for the implementation of the Act. Finally the Special Officer himself has managed to get into the shoes of State Chief Information Commissioner, after his retirement.

On hearing the name of him, for appointment as the SCIC, the present C.M and the then Leader of Opposition Sri V.S Achuthanandan objected to his appointment, because of the reason that he being an Ex- Bureaucrat, cannot maintain truth and allegiance to the RTI Act, and cannot perform the functions assigned to him in favor of the citizens, for whom the enactment was made for transparent and accountable governance by the bureaucracy. (There were media reports at that time about this) This doubt of the Leader of Opposition about discarding the RTI Act in favour of bureaucrats has become true in the case of appeal No.99/2006 considered by the Division Bench of the Commission. For more details please read the post ‘RTI Act jerks the State information Commission’, under the caption ‘Join the Legal Battle’

(According to the provision laid down under 15 of the RTI Act; Government have constituted a Committee consisting of the then (i) Hon. Chief Minister (Chairperson), (ii) Hon. Leader of Opposition and (iii) Hon. Minister for Finance and Excise (Members) for making recommendations to the Governor for the appointment of SCIC and 3 other State Information Commissioners.)

Please use your comments section to give your views.

A Quick Response from Unyielding University Authorities

It has come to the notce of RIPF that the Kerala University had prepared a short list for selection and appointment of 400 vacancies of Assistants and decided to interwiew the candidates without publishing the shortlist. RIPF applied RTI on 6-8-2007 and the University authorities informed that "since the recruitment procedure is strictly confidential matter until the preparation of the final rank list and so they cannot publish the short list before interview." But on my appeal dated 9-9-2007 with the appellate authority under RTI Act, the Registrar of Kerala University was forced to publish the short list of the candidates.

To my surprise, I have got a call on 8-10-2007, the due date of reply under RTI Act, from the Registrar's office and informed that the shortlist will be published on 9-10-2007 and the reply to my appeal will be sent soon. What a kind response? It wouldn't have been possible without RTI.

Then the University Registrar as per his letter No. RTI/24982/2007 dated 31-10-2007 informed me the following information.

Date of notification - 3-3-20o5
Total Number of applicants - 43358
Date of written test - 3-7-2005
Number appeared for written test - 37939
Date of finalisation of short list - 9-10-2007
(Important to note that on 6-8-2007 I have applied RTI and on 9-9-2007 the appeal and so the University Authorities are forced to publish the short list on
9-10-2007)
Total number of candidates short listed - 2114
Date of publication of short list - 9-10-2007
Date/dates fixed for interview - November 2007
If I have not applied RTI the University Authorities might have conducted the interview without publishing the short list and so that the selection process will not be in a fool-proof manner.
Thanks to RTI Act, 2005.

The RTI questionnaire dated 6-8-2007 to K U authorities

1. The date of notification inviting application for the post of Assistant
2. The total number of applications for the above post
3. The date of conducting writtrn test and the total number appeared
4. The authority which had conducted the written test
5. The authority which had conducted the evaluation of answer papers
6. The cut of mark if any fixed for short listing and the authority which had fixed the cut of mark and the date on which such a decision was taken
7. The date of finalisation of the short list
8. The total number of candidates shortlisted for interview
9. The authority which had approved the short list
10.The authority conducting the interview
11.The date of publication of the shortlist and the authority under the University Statutes which is empowered to publish the shortlist, and if not published the reasons and explanations for not publishing the shotlist, before the interview
12.Thedate / dates fixed for the interview

All the above cites issues arw under scanning and review by the Kerala Lok Ayukta

The RIPF (Right to Information Protection Forum) is a registered body of committed individuals working towards making our government and society more transparent and accountable, with relevance to which the Right to Information Act envisages:

1. The right of any citizen of India to request access to information available with public authorities;
2. The duty of government to pro-actively make available key information to all;

What is information?

Every citizen in India has the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under sec. 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. The freedom of speech and expression is a preferred right even among the fundamental rights. The Right to information Act is merely an instrument that lays down the statutory procedure in the exercise of this right. The prerequisite for enjoying this right is knowledge and information. But without access to information, this was incomplete. The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed in the Airways case in 1995 that “the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to acquire information and to disseminate it.” Thus the law declared in India is clear. But for the last 57 years, the bureaucrats always kept guard on each information available with the public authorities as they were having the weapon of OSA (Official Secrets Act). Similarly the executive has the rules of disciplinary proceedings, judiciary has the contempt of court provisions and the legislature has the parliamentary privileges.

Now with the legislation of the RTI Act, every citizen in India has actually got the right to free speech and expression which includes the right to receive and collect information and disseminate it. With the advent of RTI Act the country finally belongs to the citizen of India, and it has become a tremendous weapon for the common people.

Objectives:

The RIPF, a non-government organization, is committed to promote right to information movement. The aims and objects of RIPF shall be to work in all possible ways to encourage democratic values in governance, for strengthening of practices and systems and to ensure just, transparent and accountable governance, free from corrupt practices.

Organisational structure

RIPF is registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Act. As per the requirement of Societies Act, there is a General Body of members of RIPF, which consists of 15 members. Out of the General Body, an Executive Committee consists of 7 members is elected, which is required to run RIPF. This includes President, Secretary, Treasurer and four executive members. This core team is responsible for carrying out the day-to-day activities of RIPF and is answerable to the General Body.

Executive Committee Members

Mr. M. Nandanan (President)
Mr. N. Rajendran (Secretary)
Mr. P.B. Rajendrababu (Treasurer)
Mr. K.S. Sivarajan
Mr. K.M. Jalaludeen
Mr. B. Sugathan
Mr. B. Sasidharan

Contact us:
The Secretary, Right to Information Protection Forum (RIPF)
TC. 10/1068(1), Surya, ARA 100, Vilabhagom Gardens,
Mananthala, Trivandrum 695015.
email: ripfkerala@gmail.com
Tel: (0471)2531159 Mob:9447345122