This story is from May 15, 2020

Puducherry govt refuses to reveal info on officials failing to furnish assets

Puducherry govt refuses to reveal info on officials failing to furnish assets
PUDUCHERRY: The Puducherry government has refused to disclose details of assets declared by Group A and Group B government servants every year. There are about 14,000 Group A and Group B officers in the Union territory of Puducherry.
Replying to a query filed under the RTI Act by National Campaign for People’s RTI member and activist Saurav Das, the chief vigilance office (CVO) has admitted that it does not maintain records of names of officers who have and have not declared their assets every year.

The office has also refused to share any details on action taken against the officers, who failed to declare their assets periodically. All officers are mandated to furnish such declarations by January 31 each year failing which vigilance clearance will not be accorded to them.
The officers will not be entitled to any promotions, regularisation and retirement benefits without vigilance clearance. The declaration of assets by officials every year will be crucial in exposing any disproportionate accumulation of their assets and their corrupt practices if any.
The chief vigilance office is headed by the chief secretary Ashwini Kumar as chief vigilance officer.
CVO’s public information officer (PIO) M Kannan refused to divulge any details about the property returns invoking Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure unless it involves a larger public interest. However, appealing against this order, Das contested that he had not asked for any details of the properties of the officials but only the names of the officers, who failed to file the declaration and action taken against them for failing to do so, both of which are not exempted from disclosure.

Das filed an appeal against the PIO's denial. The first appellate authority, secretary (vigilance) H P S Sran held a hearing during which the PIO withdrew his previous claim of exemption and made a fresh submission that the CVO does not maintain hard or soft copies of the names of officers but only the hard copies of their annual immovable property returns (APR).
“Information sought for by the appellant is not available in any form as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act… It requires compilation of large data which will disproportionately divert the resources of public authority”, the PIO claimed.
However, Das calls this argument self-contradicting. “Under RTI, ‘information’ is defined as ‘any material in any form’. The CVO has admitted that they have records of the property returns but at the same time claim that they do not have names and details of officers who have not made such declarations. How is this possible? This clearly means that the CVO does not keep track of who is submitting details and who is not. This raises serious doubts on the functioning of CVO and its tracking and monitoring procedure. Now they do not want to be transparent either”.
The central information commission, the apex body to adjudicate on RTI matters, has time and again ruled that if records are not maintained in the format as asked by an applicant. Information must be provided in an alternate format but this cannot be an excuse to refuse disclosure, he said.
Section 4 of the RTI Act mandates every government department to ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are computerized and connected through a network. “I am surprised that CVO has not done this till date. The records not digitized, even after the Digital India initiative and clear orders of the Puducherry lieutenant governor. Now they claim that people cannot have access because they have failed to maintain records in an accessible manner”, charged Das. “All these details should have been disclosed suo motu by the CVO but now they are even resisting from giving names”.
The PIO has also submitted that apart from random scrutiny, the CVO verifies the APRs only on receiving a complaint and if required, orders an inquiry. Calling this a sham, Das alleged that if even details of errant officers are not disclosed, it will not leave any scope for public scrutiny and a possible complaint.
Calling this an assault on transparency, the activist has demanded immediate digitisation of records and access to information. The vigilance secretary will hold the final hearing next week. “They cannot get away by saying they cannot digitize the records in a manner accessible to the public. Information should ordinarily be maintained and provided. How can’t they maintain this in the first place? I plan on moving the commission if need be to highlight this violation of law and request suitable action”, Das said.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA