New Delhi, Mar 31 (PTI) In a case pertaining to a retired IRS officer’s alleged acquisition of assets under different identities during service and change of his name post-retirement to claim their ownership, the Central Information Commission has ordered disclosure of investigation to unveil this “brilliantly unique” alleged modus operandi.
The commission noted that the disclosure of the probe “could be an eye opener”.
The matter arose from RTI applications filed with the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs seeking complete action taken report, file movement along with the note sheets, complaint number, and copy of email forwarded by the secretary, Department of Revenue.
The RTI applications were filed by the same person who had earlier lodged a complaint against the officer and later sought details of the probe.
“The allegations contained in the complaint pertained to serious claims of fraudulent conduct involving an IRS officer, including the alleged use of undisclosed alias names by him and his spouse during his tenure in government service for purposes of acquiring assets under different identities.
“After superannuation from the service of the Indirect Taxes and Customs Department, the officer concerned changed his name to be the real owner of those properties. Such allegations, by their very nature, are grave and warrant a transparent and well-documented examination,” the commission said.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari further remarked, “The alleged modus operandi of an officer by changing his name post-retirement to claim the properties created in that name prior to his superannuation is, of course, brilliantly unique.” The CPIO had denied the information, stating, “The complaint is under examination and the same cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(h) of Chapter II of RTI Act, 2005.” Rejecting this, the commission held, “The exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as no active investigation was pending at the relevant time which could have been impeded by disclosure of the information.” “It was not shown as to how providing the requested information, particularly file movement, note-sheets and action taken report in respect of the complaint filed by the appellant himself, would have prejudicially affected the inquiry,” it said.
The commission added that the exemption was applied “in a routine and mechanical manner without adequate reasoning”.
It also observed, “The commission noted that there is something amiss in the matter.” It pointed out that the complaint appeared to have been examined without associating or informing the complainant.
“Principles of fairness and public accountability require that once an inquiry has been concluded, the complainant be duly informed of the manner in which the complaint has been examined and disposed of, subject to permissible redactions in accordance with law,” it said.
Emphasising transparency, the commission stated, “Denial of access to the complete file details and action taken report, in the absence of any cogent demonstration of likely prejudice to the investigation, creates an impression of lack of adequate transparency on the part of the respondent public authority.” It added, “Accordingly, disclosure is being ordered”, noting that such disclosure “could be an eye opener whether adequate investigation was carried out or not.” The commission directed the authority to provide “complete, point-wise information as sought in the RTI applications, including file movement, note-sheets, action taken report and related correspondence” within three weeks.
It allowed limited redaction of officials’ names while furnishing the information.
Clarifying the scope, it said, “The commission, however, clarifies that it is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations raised by the Appellant in his complaint against the concerned officer. The scope of the present proceedings is confined to the disclosure of information under the RTI Act.” PTI MHS PRK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.