NEW
DELHI, MAY 17, 2006 : IT is often heard in the closed revenue circuits
that certain officers who were either on the ''Agreed List' prepared
by the Revenue Boards and the CBI or generally perceived as major suspects
for corrupt practices but they also managed good and sensitive postings.
But it is soon going to be a part of history as even the political bosses
would find it difficult to ride their wishes and ignore all such ''lists''
of various agencies and reward their blue-eyed or string-pullers with
rich postings.
The
Central Information Commission has, under the RTI Act, recently decided
that although the names of officers of CBEC who figure on the 'agreed
lists' cannot be disclosed but those who have been promoted since 2003
and concurrently figure in the much-abhorred list can be disclosed by
the vigilance in large public interest.
The
dispute goes back to a request made under the RTI Act to the Directorate
of Vigilance, CBEC, for the names of all those officers who figured in
the 'Agreed Lists' in the years 2003, 04 & 05 and also for the list of
such officers who were promoted to the ranks of Chief Commissioner, Commissioner
and Addl/JC.
Predictably
the appellant was declined the information and the matter reached the
CIC. Before the highest body under the RTI Act, the CBEC Vigilance and
the CBI pleaded that keeping a watch on suspected
officials is an important activity of the public authority so as to contain
corruption in the public offices. The disclosure of information i.e. names
of the officers included in the ''Agreed List'' would impede the process
of surveillance, investigation and prosecution of offenders.
They
further added that mere inclusion of an officer's name in the Agreed
List on the basis of suspicion does not necessarily establish a prima
facie case against him/her that he/she is a corrupt official. Only in
about 30-40 per cent of officials in the Agreed List, the preliminary
investigations by CBI lead to framing of the charges. As per the existing
practices and procedures, the officers figuring in the ''Agreed List''
are considered for promotion and even posting to non-sensitive positions
by the Ministry of Finance.
While
deciding the case the Commission observed that 'Agreed
List' is prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of
Home Affairs and that, in consultation with the CBI. An officer's name
is included in the list on the basis of complaint, public perception or suspicion
of corruption, so as to keep discreet watch on the activities of the suspect
official. This is a part of the process of keeping watch to ascertain their
alleged involvement in corrupt practices. The List is reviewed annually and
kept highly confidential. Disclosure of information i.e. 'Agreed List'
would therefore defeat the very purpose of surveillance, which is conducted
through the established procedure of preparation of 'Agreed List'.
However,
the CIC sarcastically noted that it is not understandable how the
Government simultaneously pursues the contradictory goals of discouraging
corrupt officials by way of keeping them under strict surveillance or
discreet watch on the one hand, and rewarding them with promotion and
higher postings, albeit to non-sensitive posts, on the other.
It
was further held that there
ought to be a greater degree of objectivity and openness in the procedure
of promotions or placements in sensitive positions, particularly of officers
who have at any point of time in their career had done wrong. There is no
reason why the names of the officers who were promoted or placed in sensitive
positions while they were concurrently under discreet watch i.e. ''Agreed
List'' by the competent authority, should not be disclosed.
(See
full text of Decision under 'RTI Counter' in 2006-HRIOL-64-CIC)
