SC seeks CVC status report on ‘whistle-blowers’
Posted by ekavi on October 6, 2006
SC seeks CVC status report on ‘whistle-blowers’
[ 6 Oct, 2006 0000hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2100453.cms
NEW DELHI: More than two years ago, a direction from the Supreme Court on a PIL had forced the Centre to come out with an ordinance making the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) the ears for whistle-blowers, in the wake of the murder of Satyendra Dubey.
And now, a Supreme Court Bench, comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice C K Thakker, hearing the same PIL filed jointly by NGO Parivartan and Dubey’s father, has asked for the balance sheet from the ‘watch dog’ on the complaints received against corrupt officials.
In April 2004, the court as an interim measure, had agreed to the Centre bringing an ordinance to protect those raising their voice against corruption.
The ministry of personnel came out with the Public Interest Disclosures and Protection of Informers Resolution, 2004, under which CVC was the designated authority to look into complaints on corruption.
After hearing petitioner’s counsel Prashant Bhushan, the Bench asked CVC to prepare a report on the number of complaints it has received from whistle-blowers till date, and the action taken on them.
Bhushan then shifted focus on the CBI probe into the murder of Dubey, an IITian who was working as deputy general manager in National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), and supervising the Aurangabad-Barachatti sector of the Golden Quadrilateral project.
The NGO had alleged that he was shot dead in broad daylight in Gaya because he had written a confidential communication to PMO on November 11, 2002, alleging that trans-national companies bagged the highway projects at high costs and then sub-leased them to local contractors at low prices.
Counsel said the CBI chargesheet terming Dubey’s murder as a case of simple robbery draws suspicion of the common man, as to whether the reputed investigating agency conducted a shoddy probe, or is trying to hush up the matter.
After hearing his arguments, the Bench asked CBI to conduct an independent verification of the contractors who were engaged in National Highway Authority of India work on the Aurangabad-Barachatti sector, at the time of Dubey’s tenure.
enduppowand said
ONLINE – DRUGSTORE!
PRICES of ALL MEDICINES!
FIND THAT NECESSARY…
VIAGRA, CIALIS, PHENTERMINE, SOMA… and other pills!
Welcome please: pills-prices.blogspot.com
NEW INFORMATION ABOUT PAYDAY LOANS!
Welcome please: payday-d-loans.blogspot.com
GOOD LUCK!
A.SIDDIQUI said
Sir,
After disclosing the information to CVC unde Public Interest Disclosure Resolution the Department of Telecomm.(DOT), a department of Govt. of India) could be able to recover the several crores of Rs. losses to the department but inspite of this I am being victimised on the ground that I have disclosed the illegal routing of the ISD calls at BSNL, Allahabad.After disclosure of the information the net increase in the income of the department on the disclosed point was Rs. 1365 Crores in 2006-07.Inspite of several request CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) has till not taken any initiative to protect me from the victimization by the acts of the officers involved in this matter.
This is too much discouraging and painful for me.
Dr Rajinder K Singla said
Where is Whistleblowers’ Protection in India?
Seeking Information under RTI led to termination of service
I had desperately been waiting for the enactment of an Act that could help us Indians have an access to what we are not entitled to, otherwise. This interest emanated while being inside a premier public renowned historical legacy of the British Empire called The Lawrence School, Sanawar (HP). I detected a large number of irregularities (academic, examination & financial) and qualified meritorious teachers living a life of slavery which Indian slaves might not have lived in the Cellular Jail of Andaman & Nicobar in the pre-independence era. I could not speak anything against this all because of being an employee of the institution. Outsiders don’t speak as they don’t know what exactly prevails inside Sanawar as entry within the school premises is strictly prohibited. Hence, arose for me the need of a law that could help even outsiders to find out and what exactly prevails inside the system.
But, did RTI work when I took support of it?
On 28th December 2006 I had submitted an RTI application to CBSE Regional Office Panchkula to seek certain details on the said school which is permanently affiliated to this Board. On the 5th day of my application, the School Headmaster terminated my services, with immediate effect. He got so scared from the information I had sought that he gave me three months salary in advance in lieu of notice period. CBSE-PIO too denied the information. My suspicions got strengthened, leading to a dispatch of large number of RTI applications against both, the School as well as CBSE.
Resultantly, acting on one of my RTI applications, Himachal Pradesh Government served upon the School Headmaster a show cause notice under HP TCP Act, 1977 for undertaking unauthorized constructions. The constructions were stopped with immediate effect. Central Vigilance Commission of India registered a complaint against CBSE to find out how the said school came to possess thousands of blank answer-books (and what purposes) which are otherwise the property of CBSE. Etc. Etc.
Many other RTI applications are in process and the results are awaited.
Of the many RTI applications, one against school and CBSE was listed for hearing in the office of the Central Information Commission (by Hon’ble IC Dr O.P. Kejariwal) on 3rd of January 2008. I, accompanied by my teacher, also attended the hearing. The decision is pending. But, Sanawar Headmaster alongwith his associates and some members of the Board of Governors have now started mounting pressures on my present employer either to force me withdraw my complaint from the office of the CIC or to remove me from service. The truth remains: “Howsoever high the law may be, certain people in India are certainly above law”.
I feel extremely indebted to media, both print and electronic, who had come to my rescue in my crusade against injustice and highhandedness of schools as well as the affiliating board, i.e. CBSE Delhi.
Dr Rajinder K. Singla
(Introduction:By profession, I am a College Lecturer. By qualification, I am an M.Sc., Ph.D., LL.B. from Panjab University, Chandigarh.)
Dilip Kumar said
Dear Dr Rajinder K. Singla,
Lawrence school, Sanawar & Lawrence school,Lovedale are ‘Public Authority’ under RTI Act 2005. Both these schools run under the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. Unfortunately, Employees of both schools are not covered under CCA rules.
Congratulation to you for your hard work and getting justice from CIC.
Dilip Kumar said
Lawrence school Lovedale & sanawar is owned by the Government of India. Board Members are appointed by HRD Minister. High officals from the Ministry of HRD & Defence holds posts in both these schools. Headmasters are appointed by the Ministry officials. There was an advertisement given by MHRD for the fillig of Headmaster post at Lawrence school (Sanawar & Lovedale). Pay structure of both these schools are approved by MHRD, Govt of India.But this is not a Public Authority. Teachers are not govt employee.
Secretary Ministry of HRD. school is the ex-officio chairman of the school. However, If Minister likes some retired IAS he can become the chairman.
KeralaViews said
It is a pity that the State government officials are yet to get any kind of whistle blower protection.
dayat said
Great post, I found it useful where did I need this information…thanks