Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6
Decision of First Appellate Authority leveling serious allegations (“serious process violation as defying authority and
Decision of First Appellate Authority leveling serious allegations
(“serious process violation as defying authority and favouring a
particular vendor“) in a multi-crore rupee ERP tender.
Strangely, Chief Vigilance Officer of IIMA refuses to
take cognizance and investigate.

This is the email version of FAA decision. He also sent print signed copy of his decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

First Appellate authority has verbatim repeated allegations made by then CSC Chair, Prof. Dass in his email of 03-Dec-2008.

Secretary to IIMA Board of Governors

Secretary to IIMA Board of Governors
Secretary to IIMA
Board of Governors

Disposal of First Appeal dated February 09, 2009 filed by

Mr. Ketan Bhatt, Computer Professional working in the

Institute.

This is the email version of FAA decision dated 13-Mar-2009. He also sent print signed copy of this.

Institute DOES NOT keep its employees informed about their performance. NOR does it provide information
Institute DOES NOT keep its
employees informed about their
performance. NOR does it
provide information even when
employee requests the same
explicitly.
Institute TRASHES employee
letters. And nobody even cares
to get back to the employee to
tell that his letter is
trashed. Employee has to file
an RTI even to know status of
his letter.
Official records are destroyed
on 'our' judgment!!
I
Select records go untraceable
on resignation of its
custodian. BUT, no inquiry, no
police complain/FIR, nothing.
If applicant calls it `OUR'
institute, First Appellate
Authority (FAA) advises him
(in writing) **NOT** to use
RTI provisions to be informed
about his service related
issues. Else, he passes such
unwarranted comments as FAA
under RTI Act.
PIO has informed that there
does NOT exist any norms for
recruitment to the post that
this FAA is holding.
W HOSE institute is it ???
How much of it is public ?
How much private ?

Mr. Ketan Bhatt, Computer Professional Working in the

Institute for the last more than 20 years filed an appeal against

the response of the PIO, Mr. Kamalesh Joshi of this Institute.

Even after working

Mr. Bhatt has been employed in the Institute in a fairly senior

level for the last more than 20 years.

with the Institute he refers the Institute as “your institute”

instead of “our Institute” or “the Institute”. This is crux

of his grievances.

Had he considered the Institute as “our”

and contributed for its development, then there would not

have been any problem.

I have gone through his appeal, the original application filed

with the PIO and his response as well as other documents.

also had a detailed discussion with the PIO to know the facts.

There was a request from the applicant as to allow him to

bring his own videographer as well as RTI expert which

request has been turned down by me as there is no provision

in the Act as well as it will not serve any useful purpose.

Coming to the substantive issue of his letter to the Chairman.

To the best of my knowledge, he has not specifically written

any letter to the Chairman.

On July 2, 2008 he put up an open

letter addressed to the Chairman of Board of Governors of the

Institute in all electronic notice boards of the Institute for the

entire Institute to read

copy of this has been marked to the Director for sending it to

the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Institute.

a document couched in satire. A hard

The PIO confessed that he was not aware of any letter written

by the applicant to the Chairman of the Institute as the

Secondly, the PIO is

N OT true. A softcopy of letter was delivered to PIO's mailbox on 01-Jul-2008.
N OT true. A softcopy of
letter was delivered to PIO's
mailbox on 01-Jul-2008.
applicant has not marked a copy to him. applicant has not marked a copy to
applicant has not marked a copy to him.
applicant has not marked a copy to him.
to PIO's mailbox on 01-Jul-2008. applicant has not marked a copy to him. applicant has not
In PIO's language, “Genuine grievances are amicably resolved”, rest are trashed, not even acknowledged!!! This
In PIO's language, “Genuine
grievances are amicably
resolved”, rest are trashed, not
even acknowledged!!!
This `trashing' business is
fundamental violation of
citizen's right to be informed.
If authority does not care to
even forward employee letter to
higher authority, it violates
citizen's right to be informed
about views, if any, of higher
authority.

not obliged to scan through all the irrelevant mails appearing in the electronic notice board of the Institute which has been thoroughly misused by several people including the applicant.

Director of the Institute was not obliged to send to the

Director of the Institute was not obliged to send to the Chairman whatever trash he received

Chairman whatever trash he received in his office

. The

applicant’s idea was not to redress any grievances but to malign the Institute and its reputation. Otherwise there was no need for him to put his communication to the Chairman in all notice boards of the Institute which would be read by all who are accessible to the electronic notice board of the IIMA.

Generally matters of serious nature which require policy

level solutions are referred to the Chairman of the

Institute.
Institute.
solutions are referred to the Chairman of the Institute. As if “perverted grievance redressal mechanism” is

As if “perverted grievance redressal mechanism” is NOT serious enough to warrant Chairman's attention!!

Officers of the Institute with the help of the Activity Heads take care of any genuine grievances. There is a grievance redressal mechanism in the Institute which has been re- constituted recently. The Redressal Committee has formulated certain processes to deal with all “genuine grievances”. This policy is being announced to the Institute

This policy is being announced to the Institute How does one qualify genuine grievance? Staff and

How does one qualify genuine grievance?

Staff and Officers.

faculty grievances

The applicant need not worry about the

published in the draft hand book of the

not worry about the published in the draft hand book of the WHY??? Applicant has every

WHY??? Applicant has every right to be informed about who all are having grievances. And what are the grievances.

Institute. The PIO has given full information about the existence of grievance redressal mechanism in the Institute since long. I do not find anything wrong in the action of the PIO.

I fully agree with the terms used by the PIO about the genuine

grievances.

some grievances and they are genuine which need to be

resolved as early as possible.

People who work for the Institute may have

These are the words of A ppellate Authority (under RTI A ct) of an institute
These are the words of
A ppellate Authority (under RTI
A ct) of an institute that
p rofesses management!!!

There are staff members who

remain in the Institute to generate grievances.

Such staff

members do not contribute anything to the Institute but

grievances.

I do not agree with the applicant that there are several people

with grievances.

of staff members placed similar to the applicant, there are no

Other than the applicant himself or couple

there are no Other than the applicant himself or couple large scale grievances among the employees

large scale grievances among the employees in the Institute.

Since the grievances are limited and by and large all

grievances are resolved

register.

the Institute does not keep any

!!! `Genuine' grievances amicably resolved. Others trashed. NOT EVEN REGISTERED.

I further suggest to the applicant that rather than wasting

his time in filing

filing appeals one after the other, he should start doing

some meaningful work in the Institute. If he does not

possess the skills to do the work he should acquire the

competency. Institute would be more than willing to help

RTI applications one after the other and

!!!! MUST READ PARA!!!!
!!!! MUST READ PARA!!!!
him to acquire the desired skills so that he can contribute positively to the Institute.
him to acquire the desired skills so that he can contribute
positively to the Institute.
Time and again, the applicant
Time and again, the applicant
has been assured that as soon as he shows results of his
But the applicant has
N OT asked for ANY sort
of grievance redressal.
work, his grievances will be taken care of.
work, his grievances will be taken care of.
The applicant
prefers to find short-cuts like misuse of RTI Act etc. which
has been enacted for the common benefit of the citizen of
He has only asked for
certain information
under RTI Act.
Unwarranted comments.
this country.
The appeal is disposed off disposed off accordingly. Name and address of the Second Appellate
The appeal is
disposed off
disposed off
accordingly.
Name and address of the Second Appellate Authority:
A long with truth, justice
and spirit of RTI Act.
Central Information Commission

Club Building, Near Post Office

Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110067

Secretary to IIMA Board of Governors
Secretary to IIMA
Board of Governors

NV Pillai

First Appellate Authority