New Delhi, March 31 In a case concerning allegations that a retired IRS officer acquired assets under different identities during his service and changed his name after retirement to claim ownership, the Central Information Commission has ordered the disclosure of the investigation to reveal this "brilliantly unique" alleged modus operandi.
The commission noted that the disclosure of the probe "could be an eye opener."
The matter arose from RTI applications filed with the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs seeking a complete report on the actions taken, including file movement, note sheets, complaint number, and a copy of the email forwarded by the Secretary, Department of Revenue.
The RTI applications were filed by the same person who had previously lodged a complaint against the officer and later sought details of the investigation.
"The allegations in the complaint pertain to serious claims of fraudulent conduct involving an IRS officer, including the alleged use of undisclosed alias names by him and his spouse during his tenure in government service for the purpose of acquiring assets under different identities."
"After retiring from the Indirect Taxes and Customs Department, the officer concerned changed his name to become the real owner of those properties. Such allegations, by their very nature, are serious and warrant a transparent and well-documented examination," the commission said.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari further remarked, "The alleged modus operandi of an officer by changing his name post-retirement to claim the properties created in that name prior to his retirement is, of course, brilliantly unique."
The CPIO had denied the information, stating, "The complaint is under examination, and it cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(h) of Chapter II of the RTI Act, 2005."
Rejecting this, the commission held, "The exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as no active investigation was pending at the relevant time which could have been impeded by disclosure of the information."
"It was not shown as to how providing the requested information, particularly file movement, note-sheets, and the action taken report in respect of the complaint filed by the appellant himself, would have prejudicially affected the inquiry," it said.
The commission added that the exemption was applied "in a routine and mechanical manner without adequate reasoning."
It also observed, "The commission noted that there is something amiss in the matter."
It pointed out that the complaint appeared to have been examined without associating or informing the complainant.
"Principles of fairness and public accountability require that once an inquiry has been concluded, the complainant be duly informed of the manner in which the complaint has been examined and disposed of, subject to permissible redactions in accordance with law," it said.
Emphasising transparency, the commission stated, "Denial of access to the complete file details and action taken report, in the absence of any cogent demonstration of likely prejudice to the investigation, creates an impression of lack of adequate transparency on the part of the respondent public authority."
It added, "Accordingly, disclosure is being ordered", noting that such disclosure "could be an eye opener whether adequate investigation was carried out or not."
The commission directed the authority to provide "complete, point-wise information as sought in the RTI applications, including file movement, note sheets, action taken report, and related correspondence" within three weeks.
It allowed limited redaction of officials' names while furnishing the information.
Clarifying the scope, it said, "The commission, however, clarifies that it is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations raised by the Appellant in his complaint against the concerned officer. The scope of the present proceedings is confined to the disclosure of information under the RTI Act."