Central Information Commission
M P Srivastava vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 31 July, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/EPFOG/C/2019/650282
In the matter of:
M P Srivastava
... Complainant
VS
1. CPIO/RPFC-II(VIG.),
Vigilance Headquarters, Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
6th Floor, NBCC Tower, 15, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
2. Central Public Information Officer,
Finance Division. Head Office, Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaiji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
3. Central Public Information Officer,
HRM Division, Employees provident fund organisation,
Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 01/05/2019
CPIO replied on : 03/06/2019
First appeal filed on : 06/06/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 10/07/2019
Complaint filed on : 08/09/2019
Date of Hearing : 23/07/2020
Date of Decision : 30/07/2020
The following were present:
Complainant: Present over phone
1
Respondent: 1. Shri Ankur Sharma, RPFC-II(VIG.) and CPIO 2. Nadeem Ahmed, CPIO (Finance Division) 3. Shri Brijesh RPFC and CPIO; present over phone Information Sought:
The Complainant has sought the following information (S.No. are as mentioned in the RTI application):
4. Details of action taken against Mrs. Alka Jha and Sri Pupesor Singh RPFC I for not issuing charge sheet in spite of order of the Competent authority dt.
06/04/2017 and suppressing the order of the Competent authority for issuing charge sheet against Sri Prabhat Sinha, EO for his promotion to APFC. He has been promoted as APFC on 12/04/2017 whereas CPFC had already taken a decision to issue charge sheet under rule 10 in Nov, 2016 but no action was taken on it and vigilance clearance certificate has been given by Mrs. Alka Jha.
7. The details of action taken against Sri S.S. Prasad RPFC II now RPFC I for making fraudulent payment which has been coloured as overpayment amounting to Rs 4.5 lakhs in the year 2003 while he was AFPC in Thane. Reference Minutes of the meeting of overpayment committee held on 25/09/2018. Neither any action has been taken against him nor any action against the officers who are protecting him since then.
9. Sri Samarendra Kumar RPFC I has been charge sheeted under rule 10 in the month of January 2018 and till date no IO has been appointed and in this case Mrs. Alka Jha has played a pivotal role in protecting Sri Kumar. The details of action taken against Mrs. Alka Jha and other Officers for extending undue help.
10.The details of all recommendations sent to CVC during the period from 01.01.2017 to 28.02.2019 alongwith names and designation of all Group A officers seeking advice from the CVC-1st advice and 2nd advice.
11.Details of action taken on my complaint against Shri Samarendra Kumar RPFC I as detailed in CPFC letter no. HRM-I/S-7(4)2015/30683 dated 24.11.2015.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO has denied providing the desired information.
2Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
Based on the relief sought by the complainant the present complaint case u/s 18 of the RTI Act is converted into appeal.
The appellant submitted that denial of information u/s 8(1)(h) and (j) of the RTI Act is not sustainable in view of the decisions of the CIC in case no. CIC/CBRUI/C/2017/175974/SD dated 06.02.2019 in the matter of B.Bharathi vs Head of Branch CBI, Chennai and in case no. CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/156884/SD dated 08.05.2019, Radha Mohan Sharma vs CPIO, CBI Jaipur. He further relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Review petition (criminal) no. 46 of 2019 in writ petition (criminal) no. 298 of 2018 between Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. CBI disposed on 10.04.2019 in which the Apex Court has been pleased to hold that corruption cases shall be coming under the purview of Sec 24 and Sec 8 shall stand exempted. He further submitted that information sought by him is purely and entirely related to corruption and hence provision of Sec 8 as upheld by the CPIO and FAA stands exempted and accordingly it is contrary to law.
He further pointed out that information relating to corruption is of 2013 and now it is 2020 and still to what extent it will impede the prosecution is a sorry state of affairs prevailing in the EPFO. He also contended that despite his request for personal hearing the FAA had not given him the opportunity to be heard.
The appellant further reiterated the content of his written submissions dated 18.07.2020, in which he stated that the Employees Provident Fund Organization is working under the control of Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India. This EPFO is a Social Security Organization enacted for the welfare of the poor paid workers after the retirement. It handles the EPF & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 & its three separate schemes framed there under - namely EPF Scheme, 1952, EPS Scheme, 1995 & EDLI Scheme, 1976.
As per 64th Annual Report year ending 2016-17, EPFO as on 31.03.2017, total establishments covered under the EPF & MP Act, 1952 was 10,24,188 & the members were 19,33,91,860. Total Arrears shown in Annual Report :
Rs.7,086.52 Crores. As against these data relating to coverage & membership, the Hon'ble Labour Minister in response to Rajya Sabha unstarred question No. 1091 - answered on 27.11.2019, data relating to "Total No. of Establishments 3 & contributing establishments as on September, 2019" was as under:
Total No. of Establishments : 12,95,837
Contributing Establishments : 5,01,722
Defaulting Establishments : 32,396
Initiation of 7A cases - pending as on Oct, 2019 : 17,717 He further submitted that this data is reflected for knowing present status of Compliance position and work load.
Furthermore, he submitted that he is a "Whistle blower" of this Social Security Organization. He has been exposing corruption prevailing in this EPFO in large- scale while he was in service and also after his retirement from service in the year 2004. He further alleged that the EPFO is one of the most corrupt organizations of Govt. of India and some officers right from Enforcement Officers to the CPFC as well as some senior officers of the Ministry of Labour are prima-facie involved in encouraging corrupt practices for obvious reasons despite written complaints reflecting therein the details of specific officers with specific allegations. He further alleged that three Divisions of the EPFO i.e. Compliance, HRM & Vigilance are most corrupt divisions.
He further alleged that the Compliance Division is collecting huge illegal moneys from the erring employers of the defaulting establishments, HRM Division is involved in choice transfers & postings & Vigilance Division is protecting corrupt officers for not initiating actions against them. Around Rs.20,000 Crores (Rupees Twenty Thousand Crores) prima-facie appears to have already been siphoned off till date. These allegations are already on record of the EPFO - still no action. He further pointed out that in his nearly 100 complaints submitted during last 5/8 years, he has already exposed the details of officers prima-facie involved in corrupt practices with specific allegation against specific officers to the EPFO authorities, and he stands by those allegations. EPFO authorities have no courage to challenge these allegations & declare the same to be "False". Till date, EPFO authorities have not come forward to inform that those allegations were found- after investigations- as baseless and without any substantive evidences. In fact, in majority of cases no investigations have been conducted and in those cases wherein investigation had been conducted, officers found guilty have been punished. It is already on record that on complaints lodged by the appellant and after investigations actions against some of the officers have been taken:4
He mentioned the names of some of the officers who were chargesheeted or suspended. FIR has also been lodged before CBI against some officers for committing fraudulent payments to the tune of Rs.1.15 Crores. Moreover, the Case is pending in Ranchi, CBI Court. These actions were taken only on his constant complaints & persuasions to the high-ups. He further pointed out that almost all complaints sent to PMO, DoPT, Cabinet Secretary, CVC, Secretary Ministry of Labour, have been forwarded to the CPFC / CVO, EPFO for appropriate actions as per information supplied to applicant under RTI Act.
SOME REFERENCES WERE QUOTED BELOW BY THE APPELLANT:
Ministry of Labour & : (i) C - 11025 / 01 / 2019 - SS - I (Vol. II) Employment, New Delhi dated 04.02.2020 - Complaint dated 23.01.20 attached wherein sanction for filing prosecution against 17 officers have been sought. The lapses mentioned in this complaint are pretty old and when no action have been taken, this request has been submitted to the respected authorities.
(ii) Z - 13013 / 4 / 2013 - SS I dated 03.10.2018 - attaching copy of complaint dated 18.09.2018, officers involved - S/Sri Rajesh Pandey, RPFC I, K. V. Sarveshwaran, ACC, Chandramauli Chakraborty, ACC, Sanjay Bist, RPFC I & Mrs. Alka Jha, CVO
(iii) F.N. RTI / 77 / 2016 - SS I dated 23.02.2018 enclosing my complaints forwarded to CPFC - complaints dated 05.10.2017, 03.01.2018, 28.01.2018
(iv) F. N. RTI / 77 / 2016 - SS I dated 18.10.2017 - confirming receipt of my complaints - complaints sent to EPFO, 5 complaints dated 17.04.2014, 20.04.2014, 04.05.2014, 07.05.2014, 15.06.2014, 29.06.2014, 20.07.2014, 23.07.2014, 10.01.2015, 11.01.2015, 24.02.2015, 05.04.2015, 15.04.2015,
19.04.2015, 04.05.2015, 10.05.2015, 17.05.2015, 11.10.2015, 01.11.2015, 07.11.2015, 09.01.2016, 22.01.2016, 06.08.2016, 26.08.2016, 13.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 23.10.2016, 17.12.2016, 28.12.2016, 05.01.2017, 15.01.2017, 05.02.2017, 10.02.2017, 17.02.2017
(v) F. N. RTI / 77 / 2016 - SS I dated 28.04.2017 - forwarded complaints dated 05.02.2017, 17.02.2017 -
matter related to seeking sanction for filing prosecution against Ms. Alka Jha, CVO, EPFO.
DoPT : No. 350 / 41 / 2019 AVD III dated
27.06.2019 - attaching copy of complaint
dated 24.04.2019
PMO : Letter dated 11.09.2017 - RTI / 10651 /
2017 / PMR
He submitted that these are some complaints - which are purposely kept pending by the officers of the Vigilance Division including the present CPIO & FAA - the reasons are obvious. They are directly protecting those identified corrupt officers. Had it not been so, action could have been taken on these complaints immediately after their receipts. The complainant should have been asked to appear before Inquiry Officer or before any designated officer for substantiating those allegations. But, it is regretted no information whatsoever has been received from the Vigilance Section in either way.
He further relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in W.P.(C) 11897/2016 & CM APPL. 46874/2016 in the matter of FCI vs CIC & Ors. dated 15.11.2018. The relevant para reads as follows:
6"5. Admittedly, in the present case, respondent No. 2 was working as Assist Manager in Food Corporation of India and retired from the service during 2006. The respondent has been voicing against the rampant corruption prevailing in Food Corporation of India. The respondent No. 2 has been working to ensure that there is certain check in corruption and the correct procedure is followed having transparency in works and to save public money since FCI is working on the basis of subsidy provided by Government of India in Crores.
6. The petitioner Food Corporation of India has a battalion/ team of vigilance officers/ staff right from FCI Head quarter, New Delhi to each Zonal officers/ Regional offices and District officers as well as audit cells at all these places. Yet, there are many cases of corruption which remain unchecked and are not being brought out on surface by these divisions. It is due to the efforts of the Respondent No.2 herein, and the likes, that number of cases of corruption have been unearthed and issues have reached their logical conclusion. Owing to such fact, the Respondent No.2 is subjected to hindrance/restraint on free flow of information.
7. It is not in dispute that the information is sought qua the officer of the petitioner who has been charge-sheeted and finally punished by the petitioner. The case relied upon by the petitioner is regarding the income-tax returns of individual which has been denied on the ground that the income tax returns are personal information which stand exempted from disclosure under clause 6 of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger publications and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellant authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 and similarly like minded made various complaints to the petitioner herein and admittedly the number of cases initiated and the inquiry conducted against the various officers including the officer against whom the respondent No. 2 sought information for the reason to answer the public at large that on his complaint 7 proper action has been taken by the petitioner against the corrupt officers. Since, the officer of the petitioner has already charge-sheeted, faced the Department Enquiry and finally punished, then what is the personal information with the petitioner and why the petitioner is not furnishing the details ask by the respondent No.2 herein.
8. It is not denied that there is no corruption in the petitioner department therefore while denying the information it is attempted to pro-long the proper action to be taken against the erroring Officers. The facts brought out and various exchange of documents between the Parties and the agencies/ instrumentalities of the Government including the Parliament and observation made by the Courts, clearly exhibit that the unholy nexus of nefarious activities is known to the world at large. In the present case also, in the impugned order it is mentioned that during the hearing of the case, it is submitted by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has provided the similar required information to him on his earlier RTI application after the direction of CIC, however, in the present case, the respondent No. 2 has been discriminated by the petitioner herein.
9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that such information cannot be hold as a personal information and such information deserves to be given to expose the corrupt person in the public. I find no ground in the present petition."
The Appellant vide his e-mail dated 27.07.2020 submitted his further written submissions and stated that he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Single Bench decision of Delhi High Court (as reflected above). He now got the updated status that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (Division Bench) has already upheld the decision of Hon'ble Single Bench in LPA case no. 20 of 2019 decided on 15.01.2019 (W.P(C)11897 of 15.11.2018). He further relied on the last para of the order dated 15.01.2019 which states as follows:
"In our considered view, in doing so, the learned writ court has not committed any error warranting reconsideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications' 8 He further contested the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) and submitted that the information desired relates to corruption prevailing in this EPFO in large scale. Therefore, whenever an issue revolves around containment of corruption it will always be in public interest. Information which can reveal corruption, which has the potential of revealing corruption or even which when released would contain corruption because the facts have come to the surface, will be in public interest.
The appellant further submitted that this decision has become absolute as it has not been overruled. Therefore it has binding effect upon all sub-ordinate courts as well as all quasi-judicial and administrative authorities.
The appellant further submitted that there has been grave wrong doings in this EPFO in connivance of the highest echelons of power & accordingly he will seek action inter-alia under the provisions of "Prevention of Corruption Act".
All allegations are well proved & the EPFO authorities are in some way or other diluting the entire omissions & commissions committed by the officers involved in corruption. Information desired by the appellant will lead to filing cases for "criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust & performing public duty dishonestly" which are punishable under section 120B w/r 420, 409, 468, 471 IPC & also under PC Act, 1988 as amended in 2018. In case, information sought are denied all corrupt officers will go out of hook because of deep nexus prevailing in this Social Security Organization. Thus, the CPIO / FAA, have intentionally denied information in order to protect the interest of the corrupt officers otherwise, there may not be other reasons for denying desired information. Complaints are pending in Vigilance for the last 5 to 8 years still no action on them.
Therefore, it may be in larger public interest to direct the CPIO for providing all desired information, which shall unearth all misdeeds of corrupt officers of the EPFO. In case the desired information is not provided, all cases of corruption shall be allowed to take rest for ever and corrupt officers will continue to commit corruption without any check, which shall have not only a very bad precedent but there will be huge loss of public money. In fact, the EPFO has already sustained a tentative loss of more than Rs.20,000 crores.
9Shri Ankur Sharma, the CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 03.06.2019 and FAA's order dated 10.07.2019. He further reiterated the contents of the written submissions dated 21.07.2019 and submitted that the main contention/argument of appellant in the appeal before the CIC and his earlier RTIs is that the information sought is for the "larger public interest", as in these cases there is a strong possibility of corruption on the part of EPFO officials. The appellant has further submitted that where the matter relates to corruption, Sec 24 of the RTI Act will prevail over Sec 8 of the RTI Act. In reference to this the CPIO contended that Sec 24 of the RTI Act is related to the Intelligence and security organisations specified in the second schedule of the Act. Proviso to Sec 24 provides that the information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub- section. Though Sec 24 of the RTI Act is specific to certain Intelligence and security organisations, the spirit of submissions of the appellant is well accepted that access to information is allowed under RTI Act, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests as provided under various exemptions permissible in Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act. However, as can be seen from the perusal of the RTI reply dated 23.08.2019, the RTI appellant has failed the test of "larger public interest" based on the submissions of the appellant and material on record and hence information was denied. He further submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 10.04.2019 in the case of Yashwant Sinha & Others vs CBI, as submitted by the appellant in his appeal also says in reference to section 8(2) of the RTI Act that-
"No doubt information is not to be given for the mere asking. The applicant must establish that withholding of such information produces greater harm than disclosing it." However as may be seen from the RTI reply that the appellant has not established that withholding of such information produces greater harm than disclosing it.
The same position has also been reiterated in the decision dated 08.05.2019 of Hon'ble CIC, wherein it has been also observed by the CIC that-
"As regards, Appellant's contention in the second appeal that the subject matter concerns allegation of corruption, Commission does not find any substantive material on record in support of his claim."
He further referred to the judgment relied upon by the appellant i.e Case no. CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/120611/SD dated 23.09.2019, and submitted that it is clear that in each judgment which has been referred by the appellant himself in his support there is no denying that access to information is allowed under RTI 10 Act, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests as provided under various exemptions permissible in Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005, however each judgment simultaneously also says that the mere claim or perception of corruption is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such claims. However, the appellant has conveniently ignored the other halves of the judgment to suit his argument. He further contended that though the appellant has stated that there is a possibility of corruption on the part of EPFO officials including vigilance officials, however appellant has not given any reason/documentary evidence in support of his submissions why there is a possibility of corruption on the part of vigilance officials and as such the allegations of corruption against all the officers of EPFO seems very generalised statements.
He also submitted that the action on the investigation report/complaint is taken in consultation with the CVC for category "A" officers and hence in the absence of any reason/documentary evidence, prima facie the submission of the applicant that there is corruption on the part of Vigilance officials does not hold any ground. He further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC & Ors (SLP (Civil) 27734 of 2012. The relevant paras are extracted below:
"13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
The CPIO summed up stating that there can be no denying the submissions of the appellant that there is corruption in EPFO or in general in Government 11 systems. In fact, that is the reason for the existence of Vigilance department, and bodies like Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and landmark Acts like RTI Act, 2005, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. However, to say that these systems in place are failing to contain the corruption and each and every officer of EPFO/Vigilance/HRM/Compliance is corrupt is clearly an exaggeration and merely represents one's perception towards the system. The appellant himself has submitted that EPFO has taken action on his complaints including initiation of departmental proceedings, registration of CBI cases etc. whenever the allegations of corruptions were substantiated. This should in fact give the appellant reason enough to have faith in the system rather than feeling skeptic about the system. The CPIO summed up stating that the system provides a fine balance with enough checks and balances like consultation with CVC for fair and impartial punitive actions against corrupt persons on the verifiable complaints; while at the same time the system also has to ensure that there is no unwarranted intrusion of right to privacy of the employees.
Observations:
The Commission finds it pertinent to reproduce the relevant paras of the order dated 15.01.2019 in LPA case no. 20 of 2019 of the Division bench. The relevant paras are extracted below:
"1. Seeking exception to an order dated 15th November, 2018 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.(C) No.11897/2016, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 24th October, 2016 passed by the Central Information Commission ("CIC") primarily on the ground that the information sought for by the respondent No.2 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act") comes within the category of personal information which stands exempted from disclosure under Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
2. Placing reliance upon various judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly, the judgment in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Anrs. (2013) 1 SCC 212, it was argued that disclosing information pertaining to income tax return or other information like show cause notice issued or memos issued to an employee are personal information and they cannot be disclosed. The 12 same having been rejected by the learned writ Court, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
3. The learned writ Court has found that the information sought for by the person concerned, namely, the respondent No.2 were the action taken on his complaint dated 29th November, 2014, 22nd October, 2014 and 29th May, 2014 and the copies of the charge sheet, the report of inquiry and the punishment order imposed upon the employees/ex- employees of the appellant. The learned writ Court has found that these are information which cannot be termed as personal information and has distinguished the cases relied upon by the appellant by holding that they pertain to information contained in the income tax return or other details with regard to income of a private person and, therefore, it could not be parted with.
4. However, in the present case, on complaints filed by the respondent No.2, the appellant corporation initiated departmental inquiries against various officers on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and the officers were punished in the departmental inquiry. Once a departmental inquiry into the complaint is held and they are punished, it is held by the learned writ Court that nothing remained information which is personal information but is information available to the public at large and, therefore, the same cannot be denied. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and the nature of the information sought for, we are of the considered view that by directing for its issuance, the learned writ Court has not committed any error warranting any interference.
5. In the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) the information sought for pertained to information which finds place in the income tax return of the person concerned. Even though it was in the form of memos or show cause notices but they related to movable or immovable property, details of investment, bank account and various other issues pertaining to him and his family, particularly, their finance and property and, therefore, classified it as a personal information. The order passed in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) was said to be covered under clause (j) of Section 8(1) and the learned writ Court has found that in this case, the information sought for does not fall in the category as was considered in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (Supra). In our 13 considered view, in doing so, the learned writ Court has not committed any error warranting reconsideration.
6.The appeal is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application."
Further, based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 03.06.2019 denied information on points no. 4, 9 and 10 of the RTI application dated 01.05.2019 u/s 8(1)(h) and (j) of the RTI Act. In respect of point no.7, the RTI application was transferred to Finance Division (Head Office) and in respect of point no. 11, the CPIO replied that the information sought is related to HRM Division, Head Office. The RTI application has been transferred CPIO/RPFC-II (HRM) by Nodal Office through RTI portal. The appellant was not satisfied with the above reply and had filed a first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 10.07.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Decision:
Having heard both the parties' submissions at length, the Commission notes that the applicant in point no. 11 of the RTI application dated 01.05.2019 only had asked for details of action taken on his own complaint against Shri Samarendra Kumar RPFC I as detailed in CPFC letter no. HRM-I/S- 7(4)2015/30683 dated 24.11.2015.
In respect of other points he has not mentioned about the specific complaints if any filed by him. In the interest of justice the Commission is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to know the action taken on his own complaints. The CPIO is accordingly directed to provide the action taken on appellant's complaint as sought in point no.11. In respect of points no. 4,7,9 and 10 the Commission finds that mere allegation of corruption cannot outweigh the right to privacy of the third parties and Sec 8(1)(j) is applicable. It is also relevant to mention here that point no. 3 of the RTI application dated 06.05.2019 was not considered in the present case as two RTI applications cannot be adjudicated by one single appeal.14
The CPIO Shri Ankur Sharma is accordingly directed to provide a revised reply in respect of point no. 11 of the RTI application as discussed above after taking assistance from the HRM Division (Head Office) u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 15