PANJIM: The Goa State Information Commission has directed the Special Secretary (Vigilance) to conduct an inquiry regarding the missing file bearing No.ACB/Vig/Com/23/2014 pertaining to the information sought by Roy D’Souza from Merces.
Vide his application dated 31/07/2019, D’Souza had sought certain information on 3 points including inspection of documents/files from the PIO of Anti Corruption Branch of Vigilance Department at Altinho Panaji regarding complaint filed by him against Ashish Rege, Officiating Principal of Goa College of Architecture on 12/02/2014. The PIO Smt. Nathine Araujo vide her letter dated 27/08/2019 rejected the information in terms of section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that the matter is under examination/inquiry and it would impede the process of investigation.
Aggrieved by the decision,D’Souza preferred first appeal before Director of Vigilance being the First Appellate Authority on 23/09/2019. The First Appellate Authority passed an order dated 25/10/2019 directing the PIO to provide the information within 15 days.
The PIO Nathine Araujo vide letter dated 1/11/2019 directed Shri D’Souza to remain present in the office on 6/11/2019 for inspection of the documents and the visit of D’Souza produced some other file for inspection and not the file bearing No.ACB/VIG/Com/23/2014 as sought by D’Souza. On pointing out that the file provided for inspection is different, the PIO vide letter dated 11/11/2019 informed D’Souza that the file is presently not traceable and efforts are made to trace the same.
Aggrieved by the decision, D’Souza preferred a complaint before the GSIC on 08/01/2020. During the course of argument, D’Souza cited the judgement of High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition@ 36609/12 and CM 7664/2012(stay) in the case of Union of India v/s Vishwas Bhamburkar and judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in W.P. No.6961 of 2012 in the case of Vivek Kulkarni V/s State of Maharashtra and prayed penalty and disciplinary action against the PIO.
Considering the position of the case and taking serious note that such an important file is misplaced and not preserved properly, the State Information Commission was of the opinion that thorough inquiry ought to have been initiated by the public authority in view of the judgements of the Courts to set the criminal law in motion and to fix responsibility for the loss of records and take action against the Officer/Official responsible for the loss of records. The SIC therefore passed an order on 06/08/2020 directing the Special Secretary (Vigilance) to conduct an inquiry regarding the missing file which is not traced and found in the records and to fix responsibility for missing the file/documents. Directions are also given to complete the said inquiry within 6 months and to furnish the copy of the inquiry report to Shri Roy D’Souza. SIC also kept the right of the Complainant to seek the information open if the file is traced.
