Dr Nazrul Islam, currently IG with the enforcement branch, is a no-nonsense officer, who upset the CPM with a controversial book on his experiences as an IPS officer trying to keep the force insulated from the CPM’s political machinations.

Last year, the government’s Vigilance Commission launched an inquiry against him on the basis of a specific complaint. When, a year later, Islam continued to be in the dark about the commission’s findings, he filed an RTI application with the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of the Home department (personnel and administrative reforms).

The SPIO did not reply to Islam’s application but told the secretary to the Vigilance Commission in a memo dated April 5 (no. 344-PAR (AR)/0/3B-5/2007) that the commission should furnish the information to Islam.

Stonewalled at Step 1, Islam wrote to the department’s Appellate Authority on April 20, citing rules to point out that the SPIO could be “deemed to have refused” his request, as it had failed to give the information he sought.

The Appellate Authority, dismissing Islam’s appeal on April 26, issued an order ——- No. 397-P&AR (Vig.) —— stating that Islam should appeal to the designated officer of the Vigilance Commission.

Stonewalled again, Islam then appealed to the final authority, the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act of 2005, on May 8.

The SCIC directed the SPIO of the Home department to furnish the required information to Islam. The SPIO duly furnished the information - but to the SCIC, not to Islam.

While Nazrul Islam continues to be in the dark, The Indian Express has the answers he wants.

Islam had sought answers to 13 questions, the most vital being: “What is the present position of the inquiry?” The SPIO’s answer: “Presently, by an order of the Hon’ble High Court, dated 29.07.2006, the matter is lying with the Home Secretary & Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal (Case No. W.P. 16654(W) of 2006).”

Other questions posed by Islam (and their answers): On which date was the preliminary inquiry launched? The answer: on March 1, 2006.

“Was it started on the basis of some complaint, or on its own by the Vigilance Commission, or as per the direction of the Government of WB?” Islam asked next. The reply: It was started on the basis of a specific complaint.

From the questions and their answers it is clear the complainant was pseudonymous and his/her name cannot be verified or located. Nor can the commission get the complainant to corroborate the allegations since the complainant’s identity is not known.

The commission decided to launch an open inquiry on March 6, 2007 on the basis of the preliminary inquiry. That makes it a record six days!