First Appeal against Registrar Vigilance Delhi High Court for NOT taking action against Judicial Officer despite ample proofs

First Appeal against 

Registrar Vigilance 

(Delhi High Court) for No Action 

against Judicial Officer of 

Delhi (DJS) - & Approval by PIO

To                                                                    Dated 13/12/2016

First Appellate Authority,

Registrar (Establishment), Room No. 101,

First Floor, Administrative Block,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Sub:-   First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

With reference to No.11928/RTI/DHC/512/2016    Dated: 11/12/2016

Respected Sir,

E.     In the above reference number I received one sheet with reference CJS/1560-Dt.11.12.2016

F.     That corresponding letter (mentioned below) refers to the letter which I posted on 08/10/2016 and regarding which I sent this concerned RTI request on 10/11/2016 to which the above reference number relates. In this regard it is most humbly submitted as follows:-

G.    Point 1 of the corresponding letter is an assertion/ information wrt background in the light of supporting facts & documents annexed thereto. This is not allegation as tried to be presented by the respectable PIO.

H.    Point 2 of the corresponding letter is a query in which information is requested whether possession of two completely different government identities is a criminal offence or not but the PIO has tried to present it also as an allegation.

I.     In Point 2 of corresponding letter an appropriate action was requested from the esteemed authority ONLY IF the answer to the above part of query in point 2 is YES and the Hon'ble PIO has not bothered to provide information thereto.

J.     Point 3 of corresponding letter has been reiterated as it is.

K.    Point 4 of corresponding letter has been totally ignored by the Hon'ble PIO. In Point 4 the concerned authority has been duly informed that on the MEMO there is a possibility of court record tampering. And in such tampering either the Ld. MM's signatures have been obtained or have been forged.

IS THAT NOT SERIOUS?

IS THAT NOT A JOB OF ADMINISTRATIVE?

DOES THAT NOT DEMAND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION?

L.     Point 4 has been deliberately ignored by the PIO completely because both the expected situations come under the utmost gravity wrt a Ld MM's court's working because the two conditions arise out of that viz., Either Signatures of Ld MM have been obtained OR Signatures of the Ld MM have been forged. Doesn't that come under Administrative Action? Hence this point no. 4 has been deliberately ignored by the Hon'ble PIO & thereby in CJS/1560-Dt.11.12.2016 there has been hand-written that no administrative action is caned. I checked dictionary to find out the meaning of caned but I am unable to understand what that means.

M.    Within Point 4 of corresponding letter, I even gave a written request for an appropriate action based on such unethical practices in the court of Ld MM concerned but even after that this point has been ignored & missed out completely.

N.    NOW COMING BACK TO THE RTI POINTS AS FOLLOWS:-

O.    In Point 6 of RTI concerned I have asked information "6. Kindly supply information Is it a criminal offence for the same person to possess one aadhar card 1234 3423 9210 with name “PATIVRATA DEVI” & one voter card QWK1827374 with name “JHOOTHI DEVI” at the same time." But the PIO has not supplied information.

P.     In Point 9 of RTI concerned which relates to Point 4 of corresponding letter I have not been supplied information & this point has been completely ignored by the Hon'ble PIO. The three paras above which mentions Point 4 of corresponding letter are requested to be read with this para & are not being repeated herein for brevity.

Q.    Last but not the least I requested within RTI concerned to "Kindly provide the information to each point separately. Please do not club the information to the points even if the information is repeated" but this request has also been ignored & I have been provided with an equivocate response by the Hon'ble PIO which is against the basic spirit of RTI Act'2005.

R.    Since no administrative action has been taken on the basis of point 4 of corresponding letter & that point has been totally ignored by the PIO vide CJS/1560-Dt.11.12.2016 & even point 9 of RTI which directly relates to point 4 of corresponding letter ignores completely & equivocate answers have been provided hence there might be a possibility that the administrative authority & PIO might have reached a common understanding in order to miss/ignore/mislead this part completely which if enquired by this Hon’ble FAA might bring forth the reasons for such connected actions.

PRAYER:-

(4)   The PIO be directed to immediately release this information which he has denied in the light of above facts & circumstances.

(5)   The further information shall be provided free of cost i.e., the applicant/ undersigned be exempted in view of section 7(6) of RTI Act 2005 from payment of any further fee payable by me for supplying of requested information on account of default on the part of PIO to supply information within prescribed time.

(6)   Action & Penalty against erring PIO as per section 20 of RTI Rules’2005

(7)   Other reliefs & orders as this Hon’ble FAA deems fit in the light of above facts & circumstances.

I am sending Five Blank Postal Orders 32F 123456 32F 123456 32F 123456 32F 12345632F 123456 of Rs. 10 each dated 01/12/2016 is attached herewith. Kindly fill the details as it is the duty of PIO/FAA to provide reasonable assistance u/s 5 (3) of the RTI act to applicant.

 (ATUR CHATUR)

C/o   Q-7/77, GF, Sector-30, Rohini, Delhi-110085

Email:          aturchatur@yahoo.com

Phone:                         09873540498