Customs rejects RTI query on its staff
Customs rejects RTI query on its staff
Mumbai: It’s a question of who will bell the cat. The customs vigilance department is refusing to divulge information pertaining to officials working in its own department under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The reason given: the information would hamper investigations and amount to an invasion of privacy.
The application filed under the RTI act was rejected by the Additional Director General of Vigilance, who in a written reply stated that the information sought was “an unwarranted invasion of privacy’’ and would “impede the process of investigation.’’
Mumbai-based RTI activist Rajesh Dharak had filed the query seeking details regarding various vigilance officers of the West zone unit located in Mumbai. However, the vigilance headquarters, Customs and Excise, New Delhi refused to give out the information citing sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
A senior official with the customs vigilance department said the wing had a impeccable record. Entrusted with the task of keeping a vigil on customs officials, he said that it was preventing corruption and irregularities, inquiring into such complaints and punishing those responsible.
But Dharak has now gone in for an appeal questioning the validity of the decision to deny the information. “It is a
fundamental right of the citizens of the country to find out whether probe agencies like vigilance department of the government are functioning properly,’’ said Dharak. In his query, he had not even asked the names of the officers; it was in the nature of a general application regarding the number of complaints received against vigilance officers, date of commencement of inquiries, date of completion of inquiries and the status of inquiries.
Earlier, Dharak had filed another RTI query in April this year after he learnt that a vigilance department of the western zone had violated a Central Vigilance Commission circular that the tenure of officers cannot exceed more than three years in ‘sensitive’ postings. He had then obtained information that 11 officers, of the rank of additional commissioner and superintendent, had managed to continued in the same post for over three years and thus violated the CVC guideline.
But even with this query, incomplete information was provided. “Queries like whether there has been a violation of the CVC circular and who is responsible and punishable for this violation was unanswered,’’ Dharak says. He has now filed a second appeal before the Chief Information Commission.
RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi said Dharak’s case indicated the problems faced by the common man in acquiring information on government decision despite the enactment of the RTI act.
