Jump to content
News Ticker
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
karira

Delhi Police, MCD top list of most corrupt depts

Recommended Posts

karira

As reported in indianexpress.com on 19 July 2010:

Delhi Police, MCD top list of most corrupt depts

 

Delhi Police, MCD top list of most corrupt depts

 

The two departments which have the maximum interface with the public, are also the most corrupt, according to the number of corruption cases filed by Delhi's Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) in the last three years. Delhi Police tops the list of government departments against whom the ACB has filed corruption cases, followed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD).

 

As many as 59 cases were filed against Delhi Police personnel followed by 27 against MCD employees.

 

In all, as many as 300 Delhi government officials have been charged with involvement in corrupt activities between 2007 and 2010, the ACB said in reply to a Right to Information query by Ashwini Shrivastava.

 

While officer at the level of inspector is the senior-most police officer charged with corruption, the other officers, including those from the MCD include commissioners, executive engineers, junior engineers, and senior clerks among others.

 

According to the ACB, 57 cases were registered against 80 employees in 2007, 45 each in 2008 and 2009 against 122 and 64 officers respectively.

 

Out of the 22 cases registered till May this year, ten were against Delhi Police officials, three against MCD employees and six against employees of other departments of the Delhi Government.

 

Asked to comment on alleged instances of corruption detected by the ACB, the Delhi Police's Joint Commissioner (Vigilance) N Dilip Kumar said "We regularly organise vigilance checks in the department and act strictly on any complaints regarding involvement of any officials in corrupt practices.

 

"Recently, we had carried out sting operations to nail corrupt police officials," he added.

 

Asked about corruption in the MCD, its spokesman Deep Mathur remarked: "We have introduced e-governance in our departments to discourage corruption."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

As reported in dnaindia.com on 17 August 2010:

About 200 government personnel in Delhi under Vigilance scanner - India - DNA

About 200 government personnel in Delhi under Vigilance scanner

 

Nearly 200 government employees, including an IAS officer, of different departments in Delhi have either had charge sheet filed against them or have been slapped with penalty in the past three years over alleged involvement in corruption.

 

According to information received from Directorate of Vigilance under the government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, out of the total 183 government employees -- 93 were issued charge sheet and 90 others had penalty imposed on them between 2007 and May 2010.

 

Those against whom charge sheets were filed include RK Srivastav, IAS, Baboo Lal, joint director, Jagdish Prasad Raghav, Rajender Singh, DS Choudhary, Amarjeet Singh Bajwa, Chander Has, Satish Kumar Ahuja, all assistant commissioners of police and MK Aggarwal, chief general manager, Delhi Transport Corporation besides other senior officers, according to a reply to an RTI query.

 

Besides, Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, station officer, Delhi Fire Services, Randhir Singh Bharadwaj, assistant commissioner of police, Dilbagh Rai, accounts officer, Kongan Ariyan, Rajesh Kumar and RK Kaushik, all lecturers and other senior employees were slapped with penalty for their alleged involvement in illegal practices.

 

Exercising his Right to Information, Ashwini Shrivastava had asked the Vigilance Directorate to provide information about the total number of employees in Delhi against whom disciplinary action has been recommended or imposed penalty between 2007 and 2010 besides other information.

 

However, the department did not provide details of cases against the alleged tainted officers.

 

In response to other RTI applications, it said the Anti Corruption Branch of Dehi Government has registered as many as 59 cases against Delhi police personnel followed by 27 against MCD employees during the same period.

 

Out of the 22 cases registered till May this year, ten were against Delhi police officials, three against MCD employees and six against employees of other departments of the Delhi government, the reply has said.

 

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a total of 237 cases between 2007 and 2010 against different people for their alleged involvement in corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atul Patankar

As reported at ndtv.com on September 12, 2010

 

New Delhi: About 200 criminal cases have been registered against policemen in the city in the past three years, with offences ranging from minor ones to serious crimes like molestation, possessing drugs and abduction.

 

According to information received under the Right to Information Act, 2,297 instances have come to notice between 2007 and May 2010 in which at least 2,350 policemen, including Assistant Commissioner of Police level officers, have been issued show-cause notices, faced departmental inquiries or criminal cases.

 

A total of 199 criminal cases were registered against policemen for offences like allegedly extorting money, involvement in dowry harassment cases, beating up youths, molesting girls and taking bribes during the period.

 

A maximum of 795 cases were registered in 2007, followed by 552 in 2009 and 505 in 2008. A total of 126 such cases were registered between January and May this year.

 

Exercising his Right to Information, Ashwini Shrivastava has asked Delhi Police Departmental Enquiry Cell to provide information on number of disciplinary action or inquiry initiated against police personnel between 2007 and May 2010.

 

The applicant had also asked about the details of criminal cases and penalty imposed against police personnel during the period.

 

The reply said that maximum of departmental actions or inquiries were initiated or show-cause notices and criminal cases registered against constables, head constables and Assistant Sub-inspectors. There were also cases against senior officers like Inspector and ACP-level officers.

 

Some of the reasons that figured in the reply include performing duty under the influence of alcohol, possessing heroin, losing wireless set, misbehaving with seniors, losing identity cards twice or thrice, kidnapping minor, dowry harassment and dereliction of duty.

 

As per the RTI reply, most of the inquiries are pending for over two years with the units concerned despite Police Commissioner Y S Dadwal's directive to complete them on time.

 

Senior officials concerned with the departments remain tight-lipped on the RTI response and refused to divulge further details.

 

When contacted, Joint Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) N Dilip Kumar told PTI, "The department takes serious action against anybody found involved in corrupt practices or other offences."

 

An earlier RTI application filed by the applicant had revealed that Delhi Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) are most corrupt bodies, according to the number of graft cases filed by Delhi Government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in the last three years.

 

As many as 59 corruption related cases were filed against Delhi Police personnel followed by 27 against MCD employees by the ACB between 2007 and May 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Threads merged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Appeal No.243/ICPB/2006
      F.No.PBA/06/237
      And
      Appeal No.244/ICPB/2006
      F.No.PBA/06/238
      December 27, 2006


       
      The Government Officer interpreted during second appeal at CIC said that under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act the exemption from disclosure could only be claimed by CPIO only if any criminal investigation is pending and not under departmental proceedings. But deciding on the present case, the CIC upheld the decision of the Authority not to give information under RTI Act claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) considering the fact that the appellant is a government servant, the term “investigation” in Section 8(1)(h) has to be interpreted in terms of the Vigilance Manual.
       
       
      The contention of the appellant in his appeals, rejoinders to the comments of the CPIO and during the hearing was:
       
      The decisions of CPIOs are totally non-speaking and unreasoned. The provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act have been wrongly applied by them without any elaboration or justification. This Section can be applied only if furnishing of information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. A careful analysis of this Section would reveal that exemption from disclosure could be claimed only if any criminal investigation is pending. As far as the appellant is concerned, the CBI has already closed the case stating that no allegations could be proved against him and as such there is no criminal investigation is pending against him. Since no investigation is pending against the appellant, the question of “apprehension” or “prosecution” does not arise.
       
      The term “investigation” has not been defined in the RTI Act and therefore the definition given in Section 2 ( h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be adopted . As per that Section “investigation” includes all proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence by a police officer and in terms of Thus, from this decision, it is apparent that this Commission has not viewed the term ‘investigation’ as used in Section 8(1)(h) to apply exclusively to criminal investigation as propounded by the appellant in the present case. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that only when criminal investigation is pending, the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) could be applied, has to fail. Section 2(n) of the said Code, offense means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. Therefore, investigation means criminal investigation and since in the present case since the CBI has closed the case, the question of any criminal investigation pending against the appellant does not arise to apply the provision of Section 8(1)(h). A Departmental enquiry can not be considered to be an investigation in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as this Section has not used the term “investigation” simplicitor. It has to be read with the following terms “Prosecution “apprehension” or “prosecution of offenders”.
       
      If it is done so, it will be apparent that the term ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h) refers only to criminal investigation and does not cover fact finding in house enquiries. Since there is no pending investigation against the appellant, the question of appellant being offender who has to be apprehended or prosecuted does not arise. Investigation being a well known legal term, falls squarely within the confines of criminal investigation and in the absence of any other definition provided in the RTI Act, it has to be so construed in applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h). In service jurisprudence, there is nothing like an investigation even during the disciplinary proceedings. Further, in view of the dismissal of SLP, there is a specific bar on the Department to initiate any proceedings against the appellant contrary to the final report of the CBI. Thus, not only there is any criminal investigation pending against the appellant, the Department cannot also initiate any disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, the contention of the CPIOs that pending disciplinary proceeding, being a matter of investigation, the information could not be disclosed, cannot be sustained. Instead of passing a speaking order and without giving any details of any investigations pending against the appellant, the CPIOs or AAs could not have come to the conclusion that furnishing of the documents sought for by the appellant would affect investigation. Considering the object of the RTI Act that there should be transparency in the discharge of functions of public authorities and that every citizen should have the right to access the information under the control of public authorities, the Commission should direct the CPIOs to provide the documents sought for by the appellant.
       
       
      The stand of the CPIOs and AAs in their respective orders and the comments and during the hearing is:
       
      According to the CPIO/AA, FCI, since the subject matter is under the examination with the CVC/Ministry and DOP&T, it assumes the status of investigation and therefore covered under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In the comments to the appeal, the CPIO, FCI has stated that since the appellant has sought for correspondence etc. with other agencies, the same could not be furnished without the consent of these agencies as required under Section 11 of RTI Act. According to the Department, while serving as Sr. Regional Manager, FCI, the appellant was allegedly involved in a number of corrupt practices and irregularities and accordingly investigations were initiated by the Vigilance Cell of the Department. As on date, there are three disciplinary cases pending against the appellant besides matters pending in CAT, Chandigarh and Punjab & Haryana High Court. The findings of CBI have not found favour with the Department and investigation to the financial loss on account of irregularities committed by the appellant are pending.
       
      The term ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted in the manner in which the appellant has tried to interpret. While interpreting any term, the concept of ‘purpose and object’ or the ‘reason and spirit; should be kept in mind. The textual interpretation should match the contextual. Section 5 of Cr. PC clearly specifies that specific provisions spell out in other Act would override the provisions of Cr. PC in identical matters.
       
      Since admittedly the impugned matter is related to investigations under the Departmental proceedings as set out in the relevant Act, rules and procedures governing members of an All India Service, the definition given in Cr. PC cannot be applied in the present case. The contention of the appellant that with the withdrawal of the SLP and the consequent dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court bars further departmental action is not sustainable. As per the rules and legal provisions, once CBI enquiry is over and if the Department differs with the report of the CBI, further action is required to be taken as per para 3.16 of the CVC Manual. The CVC, to which the matter was referred, has advised for initiating disciplinary proceedings and therefore the Department of Personal, being the cadre controlling authority, would initiate appropriate action, if so decided. The High Court order dated 29.7.2005 only bars the department from conducting parallel investigation with the CBI and since CBI has already submitted its report, there is no bar in proceeding with the Departmental action and on so mentioning before the Supreme Court, the SLP was allowed to be withdrawn.
       
      Therefore, it is absolutely wrong on the part of the appellant to contend that no criminal and/or disciplinary case is pending gainst him.
       
      DECISION:
       
      The CPIOs and AAs have declined to furnish the information applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act which reads:
       
       
      According to the appellant, relying on Cr.PC, the term “investigation” would mean criminal investigation which may result in apprehension or prosecution of offenders and since the CBI has given a clean chit to the appellant, no criminal investigation is pending and departmental proceedings cannot be considered to be investigation to deny documents sought for by him applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
       
      It is true that the term “investigation” has not been defined in the RTI Act. When a statute does not define a term, it is permissible to adopt the definition given in some other statute. If different definitions are given in different statutes for a particular term, then the one which could be more relevantly adoptable should be adopted taking into account the object and purpose of the Statute in which the definition is not available. It is not necessary to confine oneself to only one definition as propounded by the appellant.
       
      In the present case, the appellant is a government official and is therefore, bound by the service Rules, which inter alia include the provisions in the Vigilance Manual. As a matter of fact, he got a stay from the CAT only on the basis of the provisions in the Vigilance Manual challenging that in terms of the Manual, departmental investigation cannot go on simultaneously with CBI investigation. His stand before the CAT was that even issue of show cause notice amounted to investigation, while in the present appeals, his stand is that investigation means criminal investigation.
       
      One cannot interpret the provisions of a statute according to his own convenience. Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, considering the fact that the appellant is a government servant, the term “investigation” in Section 8(1)(h) has to be interpreted in terms of the Vigilance Manual.
       
      I am extracting certain portions of Chapter 4 of the Manual, (2005 Edition) from which it could be seen that the terms “investigation” and “enquiry” have been used analogously, to indicate that investigation need not necessarily mean criminal investigation.
       
       
       
      From the above extract, it can be seen that the term “investigation” in respect of government officials could mean both investigation by the CBI, which could be termed as criminal investigation as well as investigation by the Department.
       
      Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant that “investigation” means only criminal investigation. In this connection, I may refer to the Division Bench decision of this Commission in Shri Gobind Jha Vs Army Hqrs. (CIC/80/2006/ 00039 dated 1.6.2006).
       
      In that case, the appellant sought for various information including a copy of the report of investigation carried out on the basis of his complaint. The CPIO and AA declined to furnish a copy of the report applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. Examining the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, the Division Bench observed -
       
      Thus, from this decision, it is apparent that this Commission has not viewed the term ‘investigation’ as used in Section 8(1)(h) to apply exclusively to criminal investigation as propounded by the appellant in the present case.
      Therefore, the contention of the appellant that only when criminal investigation is pending, the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) could be applied, has to fail.
       
      The second limb of the contention of the appellant is that the Department is incompetent to initiate disciplinary proceeding after withdrawal of the SLP. As far as this contention is concerned, I would like to make it abundantly clear that it is not only beyond the scope of the proceedings before the Commission to examine whether the Department is competent to take disciplinary action or not but it is also beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, when the Department has stated that three disciplinary proceedings are pending against the appellant, my examination will be restricted only to decide whether, the information sought by the appellant could be denied on the ground that investigation is pending. According to the Department, on the basis of the advice of the CVC, the matter is pending with the Department of Personnel. Any disciplinary process till such time a charge sheet is issued or the case is closed, has to be treated as a matter under enquiry/investigation, to be covered under Section 8(1)(h). In Shri D.L.Chandhok Vs. Central Wharehousing Corporation (Appeal No.121/ICPP/ 2006 dated 9.10.06), this Commission has held that -
       
       
      In the present case, it is evident from the applications of the appellant themselves that he has sought copies of various documents connected with disciplinary/other proceedings against him. Therefore, I am of the view that the CPIOs and AAs have correctly applied the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) to decline to provide copies of the documents sought for by the appellant.
      Before parting with the decision, I may also point out that the stand of the CPIO, FCI in his comments that the provisions of Section 11 are attracted in furnishing correspondence with other agencies is not correct. Section 11 would be attracted only when information relating to a third parry is sought for disclosure and not when the correspondence relates to the applicant himself.
       
      In view of my finding that the CPIOs have correctly applied the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act in declining to furnish copies of the documents sought for by the appellant, the appeals stand dismissed.
       
       
      The case was decided by Mrs. Padma Balasubramanian, Information Commissioner on 27th December 2006.
    • Abhinav Bohare
      By Abhinav Bohare
      Friends,
       
      Various cyber crimes are happening all around in the world
       
      Most of the internets lines, ISDN, Broad band, etc are controlled by DOT corp i.e. BSNL , a Govt agency
       
      Even other priavte players being regulated by TRAI and licensed by DOT (Dept of Telecom)
       
      Do we have the right to known under RTI Act various information pertaining to Cyber ...
       
      Bottom line ...Is cyber world covered in RTI Act directly or indirectly

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy