Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 26 November, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 26 November, 2021

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            क य सुचना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                           Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                           File no.: CIC/SPMCO/C/2019/641495

In the matter of:
Varun Krishna
                                                               ... Complainant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer
Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India
16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 011
                                                               ...Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   04/03/2019
CPIO replied on                   :   25/03/2019
First appeal filed on             :   28/03/2019

First Appellate Authority order : 26/04/2019 Complaint dated : 26/05/2019 Date of Hearing : 26/11/2021 Date of Decision : 26/11/2021 The following were present:

Complainant: Not present Respondent: Siddharth Srivastava, Deputy Manager (HR) and CPIO, present over VC at CIC Information Sought:

The complainant has sought the following information pertaining to SPMCIL letter No.CHO(HR) /../6642 dated 11.02.19 with reference to letter dated 15.01.19:

1. Whether the penalty of Shri V. Balaji as claimed by complainant was illegally reimbursed?

2. Whether the applicable interest is being recovered from Shri V. Balaji?

3. Whether any action has been initiated by SPMCIL upon officials who have illegally siphoned the money?

Grounds for filing Complaint:

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:

The complainant was not present at the VC Venue despite due service of notice on 05.11.2021 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED958963064IN.

The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given vide letter dated 25.03.2019.

Furthermore, vide his written submissions dated 23.11.2021 reiterated the reply dated 25.03.2019 wherein it was mentioned that the applicant has raised questions expecting the PIO to reply Yes or No; the PIO under the RTI Act ought not to do so when the matter is not covered under the definition of information, as it occurs in Sec 2(f) and the same was agreed to by the FAA vide decision dated 26.04.2019.

He further summed up that there is no reason for a complaint as there was no deliberate obstruction of information.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 25.03.2019 replied to the applicant and informed him that the information sought is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The complainant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a first appeal on 28.03.2019. The FAA vide order dated 26.04.2019 had concurred with the CPIO's reply.

The complainant in his complaint alleged that the PIO & FAA both are obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with malafide intentions. He requested for strictures to be passed as well as penalty and disciplinary action u/s 20(1) & 20(2) to be taken against the concerned officials. However, he failed to rebut the respondents' claim that the information sought is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no merit in this complaint.

The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission