Pulling up CPWD for going all the way to the Supreme Court to deny promotion to a senior official, the Central Information Commission has termed it a case of "abuse of authority", issuing of show-cause notice to it and ordering compensation to the officer.
In his order, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said it is really "pathetic" that the appellant, A K Goel, could not get any benefit even after winning favourable orders up to the Supreme Court.
"It means the entire department has committed contempt of court by disregarding its orders. Unfortunately, the Department of Legal Affairs also was non-responsive to his RTI request," he said.
The case relates to Goel whose promotion to the grade of Additional Director General, CPWD was due but the Department had overlooked his promotion following which a long legal battle ensued where he kept receiving favourable verdicts till the Supreme Court.
The CPWD disregarded every favourable order and even approached the Supreme Court despite the Attorney General saying that it was not a fit case for presenting before the apex court.
"Besides causing serious harassment to appellant A K Goel, his department CPWD has also caused wastage of public money fighting him up to Supreme Court in spite of opinion by legal authorities including Attorney General, that it was not a fit case of appealing or filing special leave petition and advised to implement the direction to give promotion to avoid punishment for contempt of court," Acharyulu noted.
Goel retired in 2010 and the department did not give him due promotion. He filed the RTI application with the Department of Legal Affairs to know the expenses incurred by CPWD to contest cases against him during three decades but did not get satisfactory response.
"It is also a case of abuse of authority by some officers and abuse of legal process reflecting bad governance in a public office.
"Though it appears like a grievance of an individual, the entire episode reflects how some officers could use public machinery and money to harass their colleague. Even after retirement, the appellant did not get at least his notional promotion from the due date when he was in service," the Information Commissioner said.
Acharyulu said there is no justification in denying the
Central Public Works Department (CPWD) officer promotion and also denying information about the expenditure incurred on lawyers and fighting the case against the appellant.
The Information Commissioner said the Department of Legal Affairs (DoLA) which advised the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) not to litigate in so many letters written to them, could not get its advice implemented.
"There is no justification in denying promotion and also denying the information about the expenditure incurred on lawyers and fighting the case against the appellant," he said.
He issued a show-cause notice to DoLA as to why maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 be not imposed on it for not supplying proper information within mandated 30 days.
"The Commission, further, directs the CPIO, MoUD to explain why respondent authority should not be directed to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the appellant for the detriment he suffered," he said.
