ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Extracts you can use:

In Lucknow Development Authority V/S M .K. Gupta the Apex Court held that when public servants by malafide, oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes injustice harassment and agony to common man, renders the State or its instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved. And the State or its instrumentality is duty bound to recover the amount of compensation so paid from the public servant concerned. (1994) 1 SCC 24,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“If   civilisation   is   not   to   perish   in   this   country   as   it   has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is  necessary   to  educate  ourselves   into  accepting  that,  respect   for   the   rights   of   individuals   is   the   true   bastion   of   democracy.   Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to   the   petitioner's   rights.   It   may   have   recourse   against   those officers."-  HON’BLE Supreme Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4  SCC 141                                                              

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet, forms of accountability may differ but the basic idea remains the same that the holders of High Public Office having access to Public funds must be able to publicly justify their exercise of power not only as legally valid but also socially wise just and reasonable, chiefly designed to add something more to the quality of life of the people. Every exercise of Power depends on this ideal for its validity.

________________________________________________________________

“Act in discharge of official duty- Where public servant commits the offence of cheating or abets another so to cheat, the offence committed by him is not one while he is acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, such offences have no connection with official duty, the official position only furnishing occasion or opportunity to do such acts.-AIR 1960 SC266.”

________________________________________________________________

“1. People in power and authority should not easily lose equanimity, composure and appreciation for the problems of the lesser mortals. They are always expected to remember that power and authority must be judiciously exercised according to the laws and human compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place in discharge of their official functions and duties. ” -Supreme Court on 18-02-2010 in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1429-1430 OF 2010

________________________________________________________________

“……..The responsibility of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption.” -Supreme Court of India Constitutional Bench in The State of UP v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865 

________________________________________________________________

RAILWAY HELPLINE ON RUNNING TRAIN

If you have any problem in a running train, send SMS on +918121281212 quoting train number, coach number, seat/berth number or PNR and problem in short. I had very good experience of this number while traveling from Vadodara to Hyderabad. Problem was attended in less than 15 minutes. Save this number on your mobile and use it in case of need.

Example of SMS:

train______ [space] coach_______ [space] berth ____ or PNR _________ [space]  no water in toilet or coach dirty etc

Success Story: HOW RTI HELPED GET REJECTED INSURANCE CLAIM

My brother’s health insurance claim was rejected by United India Insurance Co, Divisional Office, Regional Office and also Head Office. Insurance Ombudsman, Ahmedabad also upheld rejection of claim. Following five reasons were communicated in piecemeal for rejection:

[a]. Late intimation of hospitalization by 5 days [clause 5.3 of policy]

[b]. Any kind of Ayurvedic treatment is not payable as per policy terms and conditions [no clause mentioned]

[c] Claim is within 2 years of no-claim period [clause No. 4.3 of policy]

[d]. Indoor treatment not required for this operation.

[e]. Bill for Rs.6500/- has no number.

Under my guidance, my brother filed RTIs with Insurance Co and Ombudsman office, both of which could not substantiate and produce basis on which these reasons were assigned for repudiation of claim.

Armed with RTI replies, my brother filed consumer complaint with Gandhinagar District Consumer Forum on 20-12-2013. The forum upheld claim and awarded Rs.15036/- including claim amount, with interest and compensation of Rs.3000/- and expenses Rs.2000/- per its judgement dated 03-04-2014. Insurance Company had practically no say, since claim in complaint was fully substantiated with documentary evidence procured through RTI. Insurance Company and Ombdusman were exposed for mischievous rejection of claim.

My brother’s regulatory complaint with IRDA for violation of its directives under IRDA Act is being followed up, so that in larger public interest, such insurance claims are not rejected on unsubstantiated grounds.

080514

Improving RTI implementation by CIC--Recovery of Penalties

Date: 02-05-2014                                                                            By email & post

To,

Director – RTI

Department of Personnel and Training,

Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions,

Govt of India, New Delhi-110001

Email: dirrti-dopt@nic.in

Dear Sir,

Subject: Improving RTI implementation by CIC--Recovery of Penalties

This has further reference to my letter dated 21-04-2014 addressed to you on the captioned subject. CPIO & Joint Secretary, CIC has, vide his letter No. CIC/CPIO/13/2007 dated 18-03-2014, attributed non-recovery of penalties to inadequate powers of CIC. To counter his claim of inadequate powers, I humbly quote relevant extracts from judgments as under, which I hope CIC would also be aware of:

1. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgement dated 07-12-2007 in Appeal [criminal] No. 1685/2007 of Sakiri Vasu VS. State of UP has stated as:

“18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do
something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution.”
[Emphasis added]

___________________________________________________________

2. From judgement dated 27-01-2009 of Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA in C.C.C.No. 525 of 2008 (Civil) between SRI.G.BASAVARAJU v/s SMT. ARUNDATHI:

"S.20 of RTI Act provides for penalties. It confers powers on the Commission on the basis of which it can enforce its order. The Act having provided for constitution of the Commission and the power to impose the penalties by way of levy of fine and also the Statutory right to recommend to the Government for disciplinary action against the State Information Officer, itself has the necessary powers / provisions, in the form of the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. It is cardinal principle of interpretation of Statute, well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court, that Courts or tribunals, must be held to possess power to execute its own order. Further, the RTI Act, which is a self-contained code, even if it has not been specifically spelt out, must be deemed to have been conferred upon the Commission the power in order to make its order effective, by having recourse to S.20." [Emphasis added]

___________________________________________________________

3. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3650 OF 2012

Date of judgement: 08-01-2013

           

“The provisions of section 19 of the RTI Act deal with appeals; and the powers of State Information Commissioner while deciding said appeals are prescribed in subsection (8) clause (a). This subsection enables the State Information Commissioner to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of RTI Act. Sub-clause (i) then permits the said authority to achieve very same goal by providing access to information in a particular form. Main clause (a) is “general” in nature & ends with words “include”. Its subclauses  (i) to (vi) show the mention of specific powers or steps which may be taken. Thus, this placement & arrangement reveals the legislative mandate that powers later specified in subclauses are not designed to restrict the wide field kept deliberately open for the appellate forums and not to encroach upon the general power to issue various types of directions under main clause. The stipulation of specific powers is without prejudice to generality of vast power conferred by S.19(8)(a) i.e. main clause. There is no reason to cut down sweep of this procedure aimed at effective implementation as it militates with its completeness within the RTI Act envisaged & achieved through overriding effect in S. 22 & bar of jurisdiction of civil court in S.23. All the steps/measures required to be adopted for achieving the purpose, object of & compliance with RTI Act, are therefore, open & permitted, and the appellate authority can issue direction to such public authority to take any of those steps as are suitable to coerce the persons having information to abide by directions issued under the RTI Act. Said steps giving teeth to it & intended at making the law effective, therefore, may include a direction to use other powers available to such public authority i.e. conferred upon it under any other law …………..”[Emphasis added].

             I humbly feel that it is not lack of power but strong will on the part of  CIC to effectively recover penalties. I hope CIC would be aware that such indifferent approach on recovery of penalties will ultimately kill RTI and thereby fundamental right of citizens under article 19.1.a. There could be vigilance angle too for not taking action to effectively recover penalties.

I believe that only your strong intervention will sensitize CIC on its short comings.

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah

Copies to:

1. Mrs. Sushma Singh

Chief Information Commissioner,

Central Information Commission,

August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi - 110 066

Email: sushmas@nic.in

2. Shri Rahul Gandhi,

Vice President, Indian National Congress, New Delhi

Email: rahulgandhi@hotmail.com

--this is ground reality of your flag-ship enactment.