IG in dark over RTI application status

[sidmis]

An inspector general (IG) of police, who in March this year filed a Right To Information (RTI) application seeking the status of an inquiry launched against him by the government, is yet to receive any information seven months later.

Dr Nazrul Islam, currently IG with the enforcement branch, is a no-nonsense officer, who upset the CPM with a controversial book on his experiences as an IPS officer trying to keep the force insulated from the CPM’s political machinations.

Last year, the government’s Vigilance Commission launched an inquiry against him on the basis of a specific complaint. When, a year later, Islam continued to be in the dark about the commission’s findings, he filed an RTI application with the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of the
Home department (personnel and administrative reforms).

The SPIO did not reply to Islam’s application but told the secretary to the Vigilance Commission in a memo dated April 5 (no. 344-PAR (AR)/0/3B-5/2007) that the commission should furnish the information to Islam.
Stonewalled at Step 1, Islam wrote to the department’s Appellate Authority on April 20, citing rules to point out that the SPIO could be “deemed to have refused� his request, as it had failed to give the information he sought.

The Appellate Authority, dismissing Islam’s appeal on April 26, issued an order No. 397-P&AR (Vig.) stating that Islam should appeal to the designated officer of the Vigilance Commission.
Stonewalled again, Islam then appealed to the final authority, the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act of 2005, on May 8.

The SCIC directed the SPIO of the Home department to furnish the required information to Islam. The SPIO duly furnished the information - but to the SCIC, not to Islam.
While Nazrul Islam continues to be in the dark, The Indian Express has the answers he wants.

Islam had sought answers to 13 questions, the most vital being: “What is the present position of the inquiry?� The SPIO’s answer: “Presently, by an order of the Hon’ble High Court, dated 29.07.2006, the matter is lying with the Home Secretary & Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal (Case No. W.P. 16654(W) of 2006).�

Other questions posed by Islam (and their answers): On which date was the preliminary inquiry launched? The answer: on March 1, 2006.
“Was it started on the basis of some complaint, or on its own by the Vigilance Commission, or as per the direction of the Government of WB?� Islam asked next. The reply: It was started on the basis of a specific complaint.

From the questions and their answers it is clear the complainant was pseudonymous and his/her name cannot be verified or located. Nor can the commission get the complainant to corroborate the allegations since the complainant’s identity is not known.

The commission decided to launch an open inquiry on March 6, 2007 on the basis of the preliminary inquiry. That makes it a record six days!
When contacted, Islam said he is still waiting for a reply. “Being a government official, I cannot say anything more than this,� said Islam.

Bidyut Roy
Kolkata, October 25
IG in dark over RTI application status

[sidmis]

Vigilance chief asked to pay damages for ‘illegal’ probe

As Reported in the STATESMAN 25 June 2008

KOLKATA, June 25: Mr Justice SP Talukdar of Calcutta High Court today fixed a sum of one rupee as cost against the state vigilance commissioner for conducting an “illegal inquiry” against Mr Nazrul Islam the then IG (enforcement) and now IG (welfare) within four weeks of the order.

Mr Islam, the petitioner has suffered “serious harassment” by this “illegal inquiry”, it was held.

“A wrong has been committed against the petitioner”, it was further held. But his grievance has been settled by the enquiry conducted by the state home secretary, it was further held. Expressing “appreciation” for the stand taken by the petitioner, the court held that an enquiry should be held to find out who ordered the probe on the basis of the “pseudonymous allegation”. The state will prefer an appeal against the order of the Single Bench, Mr Pratik Dhar appearing for the state said. A vigilance enquiry was started against Mr Islam and a team visited the house he had built in the city and the educational trust he had built at Basantpur in Murshidabad. On being summoned by the commission, Mr Islam moved the court and submitted that it was an illegal enquiry.

These cases of vigilance should be routed to the commission from the police directorate, his counsel submitted. But this practice was given a go by and taken up directly by the commission, it was submitted. The enquiry against Mr Islam should be conducted not by the commission but by Mr Prasad Ranjan Ray, the then state home secretary and additional chief secretary, the court held in respect of an earlier writ petition filed by Mr Islam. When Mr Islam exercising the Right to Information Act sought to know the details of the charges levelled against him, he received no reply from the commission. n SNS


The Statesman