Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 675 (RAJ)

Goverdhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-04

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that a complaint was filed by him before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, in which preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and as per the petitioner, in the said inquiry, allegations levelled by the petitioner were found to be correct. The petitioner placed before the Court copy of the inquiry report dated 11.6.2012 and submits that on the basis of the said inquiry complaint was moved before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan under Section 17 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint of the petitioner was required to be sent by His Excellency the Governor to the Supreme Court of India for proper inquiry as per the Act; but, instead of sending the complaint to the Supreme Court the same was sent to the General Administration Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, therefore, appropriate direction may be issued for referring the matter to the Supreme Court as per Section 17 of the Act of 2005. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused Section 17 of the Right to information Act, 2005, which reads as under: 17. Removal of State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved mis-behaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed. (2) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained . (3) Notwithstanding anything contained . in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if a State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, (a) is adjudged an insolvent; or (b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude; or (c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or (d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or (e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner. (4) if the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emoluments arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour. 5. Upon perusal of the aforesaid section, this Court is of the opinion that it is not the stage to interfere in the complaint by His Excellency because when investigation is going on it cannot be said that final finding has been given by the competent Court. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no illegality is committed by His Excellency for sending the complaint to the General Administration Department on the basis of so called inquiry made by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. 6. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******