3 faa decision - with comments

8/7/2019 3 FAA Decision - With Comments

1/3

Disposal of First Appeal dated February 09, 2009 filed by

Mr. Ketan Bhatt, Computer Professional working in the

Institute.

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.

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

level for the last more than 20 years. Even after working

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 ourand 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. I

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 a document couched in satire. A hard

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

the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Institute.

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

by the applicant to the Chairman of the Institute as the

applicant has not marked a copy to him. Secondly, the PIO is

Institute DOES NOT keep itsemployees 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 ofhis letter.

Official records are destroyed

on 'our' judgment!!

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.

HOSE institute is it ???

How much of it is public ?

How much private ?

applicant has not marked a copy to him. NOT true. A softcopy ofletter was delivered to PIO's

mailbox on 01-Jul-2008.

Transcript of FAA

decision received

by email. Comments

by applicant.


2/3

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

Chairman whatever trash he received in his office. The

applicants 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 policylevel solutions are referred to the Chairman of the

Institute.

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

Staff and Officers. The applicant need not worry about the

faculty grievances published in the draft hand book of the

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. People who work for the Institute may have

some grievances and they are genuine which need to be

resolved as early as possible. There are staff members who

remain in the Institute to generate grievances. Such staff

members do not contribute anything to the Institute but

grievances.

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.

As if perverted grievance

redressal mechanism is NOT

serious enough to warrant

Chairman's attention!!

How does one qualify genuine

grievance?

WHY??? Applicant has every

right to be informed about who

all are having grievances. And

what are the grievances.

These are the words of

Appellate Authority (under RTI

Act) of an institute that

professes management!!!


3/3

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

with grievances. Other than the applicant himself or couple

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

large scale grievances among the employees in the Institute.

Since the grievances are limited and by and large all

grievances are resolved the Institute does not keep any

register.

I further suggest to the applicant that rather than wasting

his time in filing RTI applications one after the other and

filing appeals one after the other, he should start doingsome 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

him to acquire the desired skills so that he can contribute

positively to the Institute. Time and again, the applicant

has been assured that as soon as he shows results of his

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

this country.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Name and address of the Second Appellate Authority:

Central Information Commission

Club Building, Near Post Office

Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110067

NV Pillai

First Appellate Authority

!!! `Genuine' grievances

amicably resolved. Otherstrashed. NOT EVEN REGISTERED.

!!!! MUST READ PARA!!!!

But the applicant has

NOT asked for ANY sort

of grievance redressal.

He has only asked forcertain information

under RTI Act.

Unwarranted comments.

Time and again, the applicant

has been assured that as soon as he shows results of his

work, his rievances will be taken care of.

Along with truth, justice

and spirit of RTI Act.

disposed off

Employee communication to top management are vital records for

any public authority and as such ought to be handled with due

diligence. Request directions u/s 19(8)(a)(iv).

Secretary to IIMA

Board of Governors

3 faa decision - with comments

Documents