Central Information Commission
K Chandrasekaran vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 8 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453
K Chandrasekaran .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO under RTI,
Sr. Dy. General Manager-(HR) & PIO,
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd, Human
Resource Management, Trichy Main
Office Road, Tiruchirapalli-620014
(Tamil Nadu). .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.12.2025
Date of Decision : 08.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 12.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 23.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453 Page 1 of 8
Please provide a Copy of BHEL Rules on Sealed Cover Procedure for Promotion for the Years, 2004 to 2010.
Please provide the names of the AGMs considered in each year from 2004 to 2010, with respect to HPBP, BHEL, Trichy.
Please provide Copies of the Minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) Meetings held between 2004 and 2010 for each year, for AGM to GM promotions, with respect to HPBP, BHEL, Trichy, in which the name of K. Chandrasekaran Staff No: 2089130, AGM, HPBP, BHEL, Trichy was placed before the Committee for Promotion from AGM to GM. Please provide Copies of Confidential Reports (CRs) of K. Chandrasekaran, Staff No: 2089130, for each Year, from 2001 to 2004, which were considered for Promotion from SDGM to AGM.
Please provide Copies of CRs of K. Chandrasekaran, Staff No. 2089130, for each Year, from 2004 to 2010, which were placed before the DPC for Promotion from AGM to GM.
Please provide Copies of the Sealed Cover recommendations by the DPC in each year from 2004 to 2010, when K. Chandrasekaran, Staff No : 2089130, appeared or was considered for promotion. Please provide the copy of the Approval of the Minutes of the Corporate Committee that opened the Sealed Covers for K. Chandrasekaran, Staff No : 2089130, HPBP, BHEL, Trichy.
Please provide a Copy of the Letter sent by BHEL Corporate Office to HPBP, BHEL, Trichy communicating the contents of the Sealed Covers.
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.03.2024 stating as under:
Reply for Query 1: Copy of extract of BHEL Personnel Manual concerning sealed cover procedure is attached in Annexure-1. Reply for Query 2: List of AGM's considered in each year from 2004 - 2010 is enclosed as Annexure-2.
Reply for Query 3: The above query has been transferred to CPIO, BHEL Corporate Office under Section 6(3) of RTI Act. Common Reply for Query 4 & 5: The copies of Confidential Reports (CRs) of Shri. K. Chandrasekaran for the year 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 are available and CRs pertaining to 2004-2010 are unavailable for download in old Emap system. However, the CR scores are available for the aforesaid period in excel format. The abovesaid details are available in 25 pages. Hence you are required to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- towards additional fees by way of Indian Postal Order / Demand Draft drawn in favour of CPIO, File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453 Page 2 of 8 BHEL, Trichy. On receipt of the above fee, the above details would be furnished.
Reply for Query 6: The above query has been transferred to CPIO, BHEL Corporate Office under Section 6(3) of RTI Act. Reply for Query 7: The above query has been transferred to CPIO, BHEL Corporate Office under Section 6(3) of RTI Act. Reply for Query 8: Extract of email by BHEL Corporate Office to HPBP is as below:
"This is with reference to the Unit proposal (eoffice note no 149193) for opening sealed cover proceedings in respect of Shri K. Chandrasekaran, Staff No. 2089130, Retired AGM, HPBP, Tiruchy, who superannuated from BHEL on 24.02.2011 for consideration of promotion from AGM to GM. It is informed that Shri. Chandrasekaran was not recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. For needful by the Unit accordingly on the matter."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 12.07.2024, held as under:
I have carefully gone through the RTI Application, reply of CPIO and the appeal filed by the appellant as well as CPIO's comments and the entire records regarding the subject appeal. The appellant has submitted the appeal on 29/03/2024 in which he requested the appellate authority to expedite the reply from Corporate Office in respect of 3 queries transferred to corporate office. It is seen from the records that the CPIO BHEL Corporate office had issued reply to the appellant on 10/04/2024. As such, all the 8 queries were duly replied by CPIO BHEL Trichy and CPIO BHEL Corporate office as per the provisions of RTI Act. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that "CPIO provided incomplete, misleading or false information". The appellant has not specifically brought out any points or grounds of appeal as to how the reply of CPIO for each query is incomplete, misleading or false information. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the order of CPIO.
In the light of the above, the reply of CPIO does not suffer from any infirmity.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of on 04/05/2024.File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453 Page 3 of 8
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. Written submission dated 25.11.2025 has been received from Shri C. Arockiasamy, Addl. General Manager and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
1. "..The Central Public Information Officer submits that the appeal made by the appellant is neither maintainable in law nor on facts.
2. The brief background of the case is that appellant is an ex-
employee of BHEL, Trichy and he retired from service on 24/02/2011. During his service, CBI filed a chargesheet against the appellant for criminal conspiracy to cheat BHEL and criminal misconduct in the matter of award of contract. By Judgment dated 08.09.2006, the CBI Court found the appellant and others guilty and imposed the following sentences:
Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months - Section 109 read with 420 IPC (abetment & cheating) Ri for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months Section 468 IPC (forgery) . Ri for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months - Section 471 read with 468 IPC (using a forged document as genuine) Rl for 1 year-Section 193 IPC (giving false evidence) Challenging the above order, the appellant filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the appellant retired from service on 24/02/2011. Due to the pendency of above case, his promotion from AGM to General Manager was kept in the sealed cover proceedings. Later on 15/06/2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed orders in favour of the appellant acquitting the appellant from all the charges
3. Subsequent to the above order, his sealed cover proceedings were opened. However, the appellant was not recommended for promotion from AGM to GM by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Aggrieved by the same, appellant has made several queries seeking various information related to the DPC and its recommendations.
4. The appellant had raised 8 queries in his RTI Application. The present appeal is filed against the reply furnished for query nos.3 to 8 alone.File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453 Page 4 of 8
5. The submissions of CPIO for each query are as follows:
(a) Query No.3. 6 & 7:
Appellant has sought the copies of Minutes of DPC, sealed cover recommendations and approval of the minutes of the corporate committee that opened his sealed cover.
As the information was available with our corporate office, the above queries were transferred to corporate office and reply was furnished by corporate office As the minutes of DPC contains the recommendations of other candidates also, the same cannot be shared to the appeilant as exempted under Section 8(1)(1) of RTI Act, 2005. The sealed cover of appeliant was opened for the year 2004 to 2010 except 2007 to 2009 in line with the company policy on the matter. An opportunity was given to the appellant for inspection and viewing the Information if he visits to the office
(b) Query No.4 & 5:
The appellant has sought the copies of his confidential reports from 2001 to 2010. The available information was already provided to the appellant. It is also clarified to him that after 2002-03, the system of performance evaluation is made only by way of E-map and the copies of E-map for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 were also fumished to the appellant. However, the appellant is once again seeking copies of CRs for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04, The required information and the clarification was already given to the appellant. It is reiterated that for the year 2002-03 & 2003-04, the performance evaluation was made in E-map system only and copies of the same were already furnished to the appellant.
(c) Query No.B:
Appellant has sought copy of the letter sent by BHEL corporate office to Trichy unit communicating the contents of the sealed cover The contents/extract of the email sent by corporate office was provided to the appellant. However, still the appellant is insisting for the copy of letter as received by BHEL, Trichy and not just the extracts. The communication came from corporate office is by way of email and the entire content of email was shared to him. The copy of email could not be shared as it contains the official names also, hence the content of email was furnished to the appellant.
6. The appeal grounds made by the appellant are in the nature of alleging grievance against public authority and is seeking redressal of his grievance by seeking clarification which is outside the scope of RTI Act File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453 Page 5 of 8
7. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the reply of CPIO does not suffer from any infirmity and the Second Appeal made by the Appellant is not maintainable.
It is humbly prayed that in the aforesaid backdrop, the second appeal lacks merit and the same may be dismissed..."
6. Written submission dated 27.11.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Lata Rani, Sr. Manager, CSR/CPIO, BHEL, New Delhi, Shri C.B. Singh, Addl. Engineer, Nodal Officer, BHEL, New Delhi, Ms. Priyanka Singhal, Executive (HR), BHEL, New Delhi, Ms. Nithya, Manager, HR, BHEL, Trichy- participated in the hearing.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 18.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
8. The Respondent Ms. Nithya, Manager, HR, BHEL, Trichy submitted that the information sought at point No. 1,2,4, 5 and 8 has been provided to the Appellant. As regards information sought at point No. 3, 6 and 7 the RTI Application was transferred to BHEL, New Delhi.
9. The Respondent Ms. Lata Rani, Sr. Manager, CSR/CPIO, BHEL, New Delhi, offered inspection of records to the Appellant at BHEL, Trichy in reference to information sought at point No. 3, 6 and 7 of the RTI application.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that the main premise of the instant Second Appeal is non-furnishing of complete information by the PIO, BHEL, New Delhi.
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453 Page 6 of 811. Commission observes that information sought at point No. 3, 6 and 7 of the RTI Application has not been provided to the Appellant. However, inspection of records has been offered by the CPIO, BHEL, New Delhi to the Appellant at BHEL, Trichy.
12. In view of foregoing, the CPIO, BHEL (New Delhi and Trichy) are directed to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant at BHEL, Trichy office, for point No. 3, 6 and 7 of the RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the Appellant, the Respondent should supply him with a list of files connected with the query in the RTI application giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, on the day of inspection, all relevant records must be brought to one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided to him upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules. Information which is exempt under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed.
13. FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, AGM-HR, BHEL, Tiruchirappalli - 620014 File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630453 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)