Department of Estates regularised the retention of the allotted accommodation to an IRS officer & recovered the charges - CIC rejected the prayer for grant of monetary compensation; Work done pro bono publico is not a ground for grant of compensation
19 Nov, 2018CIC/DOEST/A/2017/176037
Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 21.06.2017, the appellant sought information regarding occupied Government Residential accommodation by Smt. Raj posted as Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2 Delhi (Civil Code 88075) at Q.No. T22, Atul Grove Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi during her stay at Gwalior on her transfer from Delhi to Gwalior as Commissioner of Income Tax from September 2012 to September 2014. He sought following information:-
1. Certified copy of calculation sheet of damage charges calculated for an amount of Rs. 8,12,277/-
2. Certified copies of correspondence made between the Directorate of Estates and defaulter Commissioner of Income-tax Smt. Seema Raj.
3. Date & Mode of payment & certified copy of receipt issued against payment of damage charges amounting to Rs. 8,12,277/-
4. Certified copy of the order by which retention of Government residential accommodation was allowed to Smt. Seema Raj for the period from September, 2012 to September 2014 on her stay of at Gwalior on her transfer from Delhi to Gwalior as Commissioner of Income Tax.
5. Particulars of competent Public Authority who is empowered to take action under CCS (Conduct) Rules against the defaulter for damage of rent of Government residential accommodation. Having not received any information from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as neither PIO nor FAA furnished information, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/DOEST/A/2017/195678 (combined) CIC/MOURB/C/2017/105785
Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 16.09.2016 & 12.09.2016 (reply on 17.01.2017- submission filed) the appellant sought following information:-
1. Actual total amount of damage to government on account of rent of unauthorised continuation & occupation of Government residential accommodation at Delhi by Smt. Seema Raj, Commissioner of Incometax (Civil Code 88075) during her stay at Gwalior on her transfer from Delhi to Gwalior as Commissioner of Income-tax from September, 2012 to September, 2014.
2. Action taken to recover the damaged amount.
3. Total amount recovered
4. If action for recovery of damage rent not taken, reason for not taking any action to recover the damaged amount.
CIC/DOEST/A/2017/183631
Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 07.08.2017, the appellant sought following information:-
1. Certified copy of allotment order of H.No. T-22, Atul Grove Road, New Delhi to Mrs. Seema Raj.
2. Certified copy of office letter no. 61/2602/TE-12 dated 26th July, 2016 regarding regularization of H.No. T-22, Atul Grove Road, New Delhi.
3. Certified copy of letter no. CIT(A)-2/2016-17/128 dated 04.08.2016 received from Mrs. Seema Raj, Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)-2 New Delhi.
4. Details of action taken under SR against Smt. Seema Raj for unauthorised continued occupation of Government residential accommodation at T-22, Atul Grove Road, New Delhi on her transfer from Delhi to Gwalior during September 2012 to September 2014.
Having not received any information from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as neither PIO nor FAA furnished information, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. A common thread runs across the captioned appeals and hence, taken up together for hearing and disposal. It is the contention of appellant that one Ms. Seema Raj, member of Indian Revenue Service was allotted official Govt. accommodation at T-22, Atul Grove Road, New Delhi. As per the appellant, consequent to the transfer of the aforesaid officer in September 2012 to Gwalior, she did not vacate the allotted accommodation in contravention of the rules. He further submits that the said accommodation was retained by the said officer till September 2014, when she was transferred back to New Delhi. It is the allegation of the appellant that the said officer retained the official allotment at T-22, Atul Grove Road, New Delhi in contravention of rules and the department of Estates remained a mute spectator in the said context. He alleges that the officer concerned managed to retain the Govt. accommodation by exercising influence of her husband; who happens to be a sitting member of the present Lok Sabha. It is the contention of the appellant that had the officer concerned was dealt with very leniently due to her proximity with the senior Govt. officials. Per contra, the respondents refute the allegations put forth by the appellant. It is their submission that Ms. Seema Raj was transferred to Gwalior in year 2012 and returned to New Delhi in year 2014. They submit that they had no information regarding the transfer of the said officer and hence no vacation notice was served. Respondent further submits that in year 2016, Ms. Seema Raj applied for post facto sanction to retain the Govt. accommodation whereupon the department regularised the retention and recovered damage/usage charges amounting to Rs. 8,12,277/-. However, the appellant strongly objects to the said submission and submits that correct computation was not done and there had been an arithmetical error of Rs. 69,000/- which is reflection of undue favour extended to the officer concerned. The appellant further made submissions regarding the conduct of Ms. Seema Raj, IRS in not communicating her transfer to the Dept. of Estates. He alleges that despite his tip off to the DoE in the foregoing context, they did not act diligently.
As regards, the information furnished, the appellant submits that incomplete information was furnished to him. However, the PIO states that the regularization of accommodation was done as per rules and policy of DoE. He however, accepts that there had been a computational error and the shortfall of Rs. 69,000/- shall be recovered from the allottee officer shortly as per due procedure. He submits that had intention of the DoE been to hide the process; the computational sheets of recovery amounts would not have been made available to the appellant.
Further, the appellant pressed for grant of suitable compensation having worked pro bono.
Decision:
The Commission does not express any opinion on the conduct of officer concerned, since the overstay period has already been regularised by the Dept. It is for the cadre controlling authority of the IRS to examine the matter vis-à-vis conduct of officer. The decision of respondent department is a policy decision, which the Commission is not examining. However, ends of justice require that complete information sought be furnished to the appellant expeditiously. Accordingly, the Commission directs the PIO to revisit each RTI application of the appellant involved in the present appeals and furnish complete information as against each query within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. In addition, the present status of recovery of additional amount of Rs. 69,000/- shall also be furnished to the appellant. Compliance report shall be placed before the Commission by 31.08.2018.
The Commission rejects the prayer of appellant for grant of monetary compensation since nothing has come on record which testifies any loss or detriment suffered by the appellant due to non receipt of information as desired. Any work done pro bono publico itself does not become a ground for grant of compensation under the RTI Act.
The appeals are disposed of.
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. K K Garg v. Dy. Director of Estates Ministry of Urban Development in No.CIC/DOEST/A/2017/176037 F. No.CIC/DOEST/A/2017/195678 F. No.CIC/MOURB/C/2017/105785 F. No.CIC/DOEST/A/2017/183631, Date of Decision: 01.08.2018