GANDERBAL, Aug 12, 2025 — Official RTI records have revealed that an inquiry into alleged corruption and willful negligence by a senior education department official in District Ganderbal was completed and submitted to the Directorate of School Education Kashmir (DSEK) in August 2022 — but no action has been taken in the last two years, and the report remains withheld from public access.
The revelations came through a Right to Information (RTI) request filed on 12 July 2025 by a government school teacher, seeking certified copies of the full investigation files. The Directorate’s reply, dated 12 August 2025 (No. DSEK‑GrvS/199/2025), confirmed the existence of the inquiry report but refused to share it, citing that “the action in the instant case is yet to be completed.”
The 2022 Inquiry: Clear Findings, Specific Orders
Documents obtained show that on 11 August 2022, the Directorate issued Order No. DSEK/IMW/GBL/2022/1433, constituting a two-member fact-finding panel to probe allegations against Mr. Reyaz Ahmad Wani, then Senior Assistant at BHSS Kangan (now at HSS Gund, Ganderbal).
The committee, headed by Mr. Nazir Ahmad (then Deputy CEO Ganderbal, designated DVO) and Mr. A.B. Ahad (then Principal BHSS Kurhama, designated ADVO), submitted a detailed inquiry report along with 22 supporting documents.
The report concluded that Mr. Riyaz Wani’s willful negligence caused a financial loss of ₹23,490 to a teacher’s salary account. The same order instructed the Chief Education Officer (CEO) Ganderbal to:
- Rectify the relieving order of the affected teacher so his pending salary for January 2022 could be released.
- Serve a charge sheet on Mr. Riyaz Wani.
- Recover ₹23,490 from him.
The official forwarding letter to CEO Ganderbal described the contents of the report as “self-explanatory” and explicitly directed immediate compliance.
Two Years — No Recovery, No Penalty, No Transparency
Despite these clear directions, as of August 2025:
- No recovery of the stated amount has been made.
- No confirmation exists of disciplinary penalty proceedings concluded against Mr. Wani.
- The report remains undisclosed to the complainant, even though it directly concerns him.
The RTI reply simply stated that the case action is “yet to be completed” and would be shared only “as and when” completed — a position echoed by the CEO’s office.
However, the inquiry report, according to records, has already been sent to the CEO with explicit instructions, indicating fact-finding is complete and what remains is adjudication — a different stage that does not legally justify withholding.
Legal Experts: Section 8(1)(h) No Cover Once Inquiry Ends
RTI law experts note that the common exemption under Section 8(1)(h) — “information which would impede the process of investigation” — does not apply here because:
- The investigation/inquiry ended in 2022 with submission of the report.
- A charge sheet has been ordered; the accused has responded.
- What remains is departmental adjudication, not fact-finding.
Courts and the Central Information Commission (CIC) have consistently held in B.S. Mathur v. PIO and Bhagat Singh v. CIC that once the inquiry is complete, the public authority must disclose unless it can show a specific prejudice. K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance further established that departmental proceedings are quasi‑judicial and not inherently confidential.
Transparency Concerns and Selective Disclosure Allegations
Advocates also point to potential selective disclosure. Sources indicate that one related inquiry report in the matter has already been disclosed in proceedings before a judicial forum, while this 2022 report remains withheld. Under the doctrine of parity and CIC precedent in R.K. Jain v. DRI, once part of an inquiry is in the public domain, other connected reports cannot be arbitrarily withheld unless independent, valid legal grounds exist.
They warn that selective release of documents undermines natural justice, especially if the withheld report contains findings favourable to the complainant.
Public Interest Angle: Corruption in Public Office
Since the allegations involve corruption and administrative negligence in a public office, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act becomes relevant. This clause overrides exemptions when larger public interest in disclosure outweighs harm — in corruption cases, tribunals and courts often tilt towards openness to maintain accountability.
Unanswered Questions
Despite having the report for three years, neither the Directorate nor the CEO Ganderbal has clarified:
- Why the original 2022 directives have not been executed.
- Why the report has not been shared despite RTI applications.
- Whether a timeline exists for completing the “pending” disciplinary action.
What This Means for Transparency in J&K
The case highlights how procedural delays and vague references to “pending action” can be used to indefinitely shield government findings from public view, even when the investigation stage has ended. It raises broader concerns about the implementation of transparency laws like RTI in Jammu & Kashmir, especially in corruption and misconduct cases inside public offices.
As of now, the 2022 Ganderbal inquiry report — completed, documented, and officially forwarded — remains in administrative cold storage, waiting for action that has yet to come.
