Legality & reliability of the documents, received under the r.t.i.act,2005

[BHARAT NARANDAS]

I WAS SENIOR OFFICER WITH ONE OF LARGE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS OF THE GUJARAT STATE, WORKING ON PROBATION PERIOD. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROBATION PERIOD, MY SERVICES WERE TERMINATED BY THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,* ON THE GROUND OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, SAYING THAT:

(1) THE PETITIONER PERFORMANCE WAS UNSATISFACTORY,

(2) THE PETITIONER WAS INFORMED, TIME AND AGAIN, ABOUT HIS UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE,

(3) SEVERAL MEMORANDAS* (MEMO) WERE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING HIS
* ***UNSATISFACTORY,PERFORMANCE,YET NO IMPROVEMENT WAS NOTICED, SO HIS SERVICES WERE TERMINATED
* * SIMPLICITOR,



(4) THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS ( C.R.) OF THE PETITIONER SHOWED OVERALL POOR PERFORMANCE.

*
BUT WHEN I APPLIED UNDER THE R.T.I ACT,2005 AND RECEIVED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS, THEY REVEALED THAT:

(1) THE OFFICERS OF THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION* HAD FILED AFFIDAVIT, CONTAINING FALSE FACTS ABOUT MY ( PETITIONER) PERFORMANCE,

(2) NO MEMORANDA ( MEMO) WAS ISSUED EVER TO ME (TO* PETITIONER)

(3) THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS REFLECTED AN EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE OF THE PETITIONER ( 7 POINTS WERE POSITIVE OUT OF TOTAL 8 POINTS) YET OVERALL PERFORMANCE WAS SHOWN TO BE POOR.


WHEN THIS FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE HO'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, BY FILLING OF SCA NO.6729 OF 2012, THE COURT GAVE THE JUDGEMENT, AS UNDER:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCA/6729/2012 10/10 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6729 of 2012

=========================================================
BHARAT KUMAR NARANDAS METALIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
=========================================================
CORAM : *** HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

Date : 11/05/2012
ORAL ORDER

1. Mr. Bharatkumar N. Metaliya is the petitioner and he has appeared as party-in-person. After being asked by the Court, he has submitted that he does not want to engage services of an advocate, even legal aid. He has preferred to make submissions on his own and to continue to appear as party-in-person.

2. I have heard the petitioner at length and considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the documents on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner during the hearing.

3. The petitioner has submitted that his services came to be terminated on ground of unsatisfactory performance. However, the documents demonstrate that the opinion and conclusion of the competent authority about his performance was incorrect, unjustified and unsustainable and actually the respondent competent authority, committed mischief in terminating his (petitioner's) service. The petitioner has placed reliance on various documents which are placed on record of present petition to substantiate his submission that his performance was not only satisfactory but was very good and even excellent and the decision of the competent authority that his performance is not good and termination of service of petitioner on such ground is unjustified and deserves to be set aside.

4. The record of the petition has been examined having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner.

5. It emerges from the record and in response to the query by the Court, and the petitioner has also admitted, that his services came to be terminated by order dated 15th May 1997. Thus, present petition is preferred after almost 15 years.

6. Besides this, it is pertinent to also note that at the time when the petitioner's service was terminated in May 1997 the petitioner was working with the respondent Corporation on probation basis.

7. It appears from the record that the competent authority of the respondent had formed an opinion and reached the conclusion that the petitioner's performance was not satisfactory. Therefore, his service came to be terminated with effect from 15th May 1997.

8. What is pertinent to mention is the fact that immediately upon termination of his service the petitioner had taken a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6422 of 1997.

9. The said writ petition came to be decided and disposed of by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Miss Justice R.M.Doshit) vide order dated 04.12.1997. In the said order the Court observed, inter alia, that:
“Heard learned advocates for the parties. Under Resolution dated 28th December, 1995 passed by the Staff Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager under the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner's appointment was on probation for a period of one year. Upon completion of the period of probation, the petitioner's probation was further extended under Resolutions dated 31st December, 1996, 31st March, 1997 and 30th April, 1997.

On completion of the period of probation, on 15th May, 1997, the petitioner was discharged from service. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition. Mr.Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order suffers from vices of bias and malafide. He has submitted that the petitioner was serving under the Superintendent, L.G.Hospital. The said Superintendent was biased against the petitioner and, therefore, had deliberately drawn a poor assessment record of the petitioner. The petitioner had also complained in respect of this biased attitude to the Municipal Commissioner under his communication dated 16th September, 1996 (Page-33 of the paperbook). He has further submitted that after 30th November, 1997, the petitioner's assessment report has not been drawn and, thus, the decision to terminate the probation of the petitioner has been based on the assessment report for the period upto 30th
November, 1997 alone. Mr.Vyas has also submitted that the petitioner was given a duty list only in the month of August, 1996 i.e. 8 months after he reported for duty. Thus, in absence of the duty list, the petitioner may not have been able to discharge duties satisfactorily. He has also submitted that there were other Assistant Managers appointed along with the petitioner who have been give further extension even after 15th May, 1997, while the petitioner has not been given the benefit of further extension. The petitioner has, thus, been meted out discriminatory treatment.
* * * ***
*** *** --------------------
* * *
*** The court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the* * * Constitution, would not interfere in such* matters. The petitioner having been appointed on probation and***his performance***having***been***found***to***be unsatisfactory,* the* order* of termination does not call for interference. I do not* find* any* substance in* the allegations* of* bias and non-application of mind made by Mr. Vyas.
* * *
* * * *** Petition* is,* therefore,***summarily***rejected.
Notice is discharged.”


10. Accordingly, the Court came to the conclusion that the order passed by the competent authority did not call for any interference and therefore present petitioner's said petition came to be dismissed by the Court vide the said order dated 4th December 1997.

11. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order carried the matter in appeal which was registered as Letters Patent Appeal No.15 of 1998 in Special Civil Application No.6422 of 1997.

12. The Hon'ble Division Bench heard the appeal at length and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 9th September 1998.

13. In the said order dated 9th September 1998, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed, inter alia, that:

“By order dated December 28,1995, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Manager in the Hospital managed by the respondent-Corporation. The probation period of the appellant was for a period of one year. The probation period was extended thrice, and,on May 15, 1997, the probation period of the appellant was not extended and his services were terminated. The appellant challenged the same before the learned single Judge by filing Special Civil Application No.6422 of 1997. The appellant contended before the learned single Judge that the termination of the services of the appellant was actuated by bias and mala fides, and the second respondent, Superintendent of L.G. Hospital, was deliberately acting against the interest of the appellant. The appellant contended that his services were good and satisfactory. The learned single Judge did not accept his contentions and held that no interference was called for. That order of the learned single Judge dated
December 4, 1997 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6422 of 1997, is challenged before us.
*** We heard learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant elaborately argued the matter and contended that the services of the appellant* were good and satisfactory; and the removal of the appellant was by way of punitive action; and,* hence, the* appellant* should* have been given an opportunity of being heard, and, failure to do so was illegal. The learned* counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the work and conduct of the appellant* was not* satisfactory* and* the* confidential* reports of the appellant were not good and* the* Superintendent of* the Hospital* had* made series of adverse remarks against the appellant, and reference was made* to certain* instances also. We* have* perused* the entire* record, which was produced before us.

*** ...............On the* materials* placed* before us,* we are also not in a position to appreciate that the work and conduct of the appellant was satisfactory. The* * ***learned* counsel* for* the* appellant* contended that the second respondent was biased towards him.* He referred to a letter written* by* him* to* the* Commissioner* of* the Corporation,* and* alleged that the second respondent had threatened* and* acted* against* the* interest***of***the appellant.***The* learned* counsel* for* the* respondents contended that the appellant had committed* certain* acts against* the* rules* and* procedure* and* he* had* to* be* * * reprimanded by* the* second* respondent. He***further* * ***contended that the appellant interfered with allotment of quarters which was not within the purview of his official function. It is also contended that without sanction of the second respondent (Superintendent) the appellant* put up* certain* sign-boards* at* the
hospital which were not palatable to the staff and other persons* coming* to* the hospital. It was also submitted that in the attendance register he made certain remarks against* his* colleagues and* the* appellant was in the habit of indulging in such activities.
* * *
*** The learned counsel for the* appellant* contended that, after* transfer* of the second respondent, the new officer* came* in* charge* of* the***hospital***and the confidential* report* of the appellant dated 3.4.1997 was written by the new officer.* That report was also* placed before* us, and the over-all performance was not found to be satisfactory.
* * *
*** Looking to the over-all facts* and* circumstances of the case, we do not think that the work and conduct of the* appellant* was* satisfactory* so* as* to* enable the authorities to extend the probation period.***We* do not find* any* merit* in* this* appeal* and* this appeal is dismissed.* There shall be no order as to costs.”


14.*** Accordingly the said L.P.A. also failed.


15.*** Thus, the termination order dated 15th May 1997 and the order dated 4th December 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.6422 of 1997 attained finality.
16.*** This would, however, not deter the petitioner and in 2006 the petitioner filed another petition being Special Civil Application No.2162 of 2006.

17.*** The said petition was disposed of by the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.H.Waghela) vide order dated 3rd April 2006.

18.*** The order passed by the Court in the said Special Civil Application No.2162 of 2006 reads thus:
“By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has re-agitated his demand for reinstatement in the employment of respondent no.1, who is alleged to have taken back in service several other similarly situated former employees. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was employed on probation and his service had come to an end on completion of the period of probation. An earlier petition of the petitioner was rejected mainly on account of suppression of material facts and thereafter even now the petition is pressed on the basis of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 56 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 which is admittedly not applicable in the facts of the present case. It appears from the record that the petitioner is in the habit of repeatedly indulging in one after the other litigation and has also availed legal aid for the purpose of pressing his baseless claim.
Under the circumstances, the petition is summarily dismissed, with no order as to costs.”


19. The petitioner was not satisfied with the said order as well and therefore he preferred appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.1632 of 2006.

20. The said appeal came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 22.12.2006, which reads thus:

“At the request of the learned advocates, the appeal is taken up for admission today.
Learned advocate Shri Hemang Raval appearing for the appellant has submitted that he would not like to press the appeal as the appellant would like to make a representation to the respondents so that the representation can be decided with due sympathy.

Permission for withdrawal of the appeal is granted. The appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn.
We are sure that the representation shall be decided as soon as possible.”


21. The representation which was made by the petitioner subsequent to the above referred order came to be disposed of by the competent authority vide communication dated 9th April 2007.

22. In the aforesaid background of facts the petitioner has, now, after so many years preferred another petition i.e. present petition being Special Civil Application No.6729 of 2012.

23. The petitioner has again tried to raise the issues including the issue about his performance and about the conclusion of the competent authority as to whether the performance can be said to be satisfactory or not, which have already been agitated at the time of hearing of earlier petitions and appeals. As mentioned earlier, the said issues have already been decided by the Court vide order dated 04.12.1997 in Special Civil Application No.6422 of 1997.

24. If the submissions by the petitioner were to be taken into account once over again then it would amount to reviewing the earlier orders and/or sitting in appeal against the orders passed by the learned Single Judges in two separate petitions and two orders passed in two appeals, by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Such course of action, needless to state, is not permissible.

25. The issue related to the petitioner's performance has already been adjudicated by the Court and the order passed by the learned Single Judge has attained finality after the order passed in L.P.A. Furthermore, the order dated 03.04.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.2162 of 2006 also records that some other earlier petition was rejected on account of suppression of material fact.

26. Even the subsequent representation made by the petitioner has been disposed of in April 2007.

27. Now, the petitioner has come out with present petition.

28. There is no justification to entertain this fresh petition by the petitioner.

29. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground to entertain this 3rd or 4th round of petition by him.

30. The order passed by the competent authority in May 1997 has, after adjudication, has attained finality.

31. The petition, therefore, does not appear to be entertained and is accordingly rejected.


(K.M.THAKER, J.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SO, MY QUERY IS WHAT IS THE LEGALITY & RELIABILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS & INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THE R.T.I.ACT,2005 ? WHY DID THE HO'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT NOT ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS RECEIVED UNDER THE R.T.I.ACT,2005 FOR REVIEWING THE PREVIOUS* COURT ORDERS & JUDGEMENT AND ORDER FOR THE PUNISHMENT TO THE CONCERNED OFFICER WHO HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT,CONTAINING FALSE FACTS?

[jj99]

Sponsorer

have you brought on record all the RTI replies received by respondent ( municipal authorities )are they flagged
RTI record is submitted with certified copies of records obtained under rti act 2005 and page numbered in appeal / petition
one of the orders I see it is accepted by court that discrimination has occurred emphasis on that and proceed further
you must have already contact lawyers what they say