Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 8: Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), G R Sufi, has directed the University of Jammu to make public the report of inquiry conducted into the allegations of administrative impropriety, favoritism and financial irregularities against the previous Vice Chancellor and the officers of the varsity.
The direction was passed by the Commission while disposing of 2nd appeal filed by the reporter of a newspaper against the order of First Appellant Authority (Registrar, University of Jammu) and Public Information Officer (Deputy Registrar, University of Jammu).
As per the ground of second appeal filed before the CIC, the appellant had filed an application under Section 6 of State Right to Information Act, 2009 before the PIO of University of Jammu seeking copy of inquiry committee report pertaining to allegations of administrative impropriety, favoritism and financial irregularities against the previous Vice Chancellor and the officers of the University tabled during 72nd University Meet.
Though the PIO passed an order on the application within the stipulated time yet he by invoking Section 8(g) of the Act refused to provide information to the information seeker. Aggrieved over the response of PIO, the appellant filed first appeal under Section 16 of the Act before the Ist Appellate Authority. However, the Ist Appellate Authority upheld the decision of PIO and the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard before adjudicating the appeal.
This compelled the appellant to file 2nd appeal before the Commission against the order of First Appellant Authority.
In his 2nd appeal, the appellant contended that the First Appellate Authority has unilaterally and arbitrarily rejected the Ist appeal without providing an opportunity to the appellant thus there has been a violation of natural justice and there was no application of mind by the Ist Appellate Authority independently.
He further stated that the Vice-Chancellor of Jammu University has himself admitted that the inquiry report was complete. It was also averted by the appellant that inquiry report has partially been leaked to media hence the report doesn’t remain confidential.
After hearing both the parties, the Chief Information Commissioner observed, “the information has been denied to the appellant on the plea that investigation is still underway and Section 8(g) of the Act is applicable. However, the PIO in his order had admitted that appellant shall be entitled to have information only after completion of investigation in the matter”.
It is pertinent to mention here that there were allegations of administrative impropriety, favoritism and financial irregularities against the previous Vice Chancellor and the officers of the University. Governor, who is the Chancellor of the University, took these allegations seriously and advised the Chief Minister, who is also Pro-Chancellor of the University to get an inspection carried out into the financial irregularities etc.
The high powered Enquiry Committee headed by Chief Secretary and comprising Principal Secretary to Chief Minister and Commissioner Secretaries of Finance and Higher Education Departments, which was constituted in June 2011, submitted the report as desired.
After hearing both the sides, the CIC observed, “the Commission has considered rival submissions and has also carefully gone through provision of Section 8(g) of the Act. The Commission considers that provisions of Section 8(g) are no more applicable as the inquiry report is since complete and handed over to Vice-Chancellor”, adding “the Vice-Chancellor, as per the procedure, has to place the report before the next University Council meeting scheduled to be held on October 18, 2012”.
“The appellant’s contention that the report is complete is further strengthened by the fact that the report was placed before 72nd University Council meeting held on April 23, 2012. Even the minutes of the meeting reveal that it was resolved that the Vice-Chancellor be authorized to examine the report and take time bound action/ remedial measures which are within his statutory powers”, the CIC said.
“From all the material on record, the inquiry report is complete. Section 8(g) of the Act has provided prohibition from disclosure of all information only in a case where investigation is still in progress and where disclosure, if any would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders”, the Commission said, adding “moreover, the enquiry report is admittedly leaked and is already in public domain as such Section 8(g) has lost its applicability”.
The Commission further observed, “a premier institution like Jammu University is expected to be transparent and fulfill the objects of State RTI Act, 2009 as enshrined in its preamble. The disclosure of the enquiry report under consideration will go a long way in making the premier education institution more transparent and enhance the trust and confidence of the people of the institution”.
With these observations, the CIC directed that the enquiry report should be made as a public document and be given to the information seeker in accordance with his right conferred to him under Section 3 of the State RTI Act, 2009. “However, if there are any witnesses whose names are mentioned and who have deposed against any authority of the University facing inquiry, their identity may be withheld so that their personal security and confidentiality is maintained”, the CIC added.
The PIO has been directed by the CIC to pass a fresh order regarding the disclosure of information within a month from the receipt of this order.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel