Central Information Commission
S Arul Selvan vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 5 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/VS/C/2015/900362/SB
Dated 04.05.2017
Complainant : Shri S. Arul Selvan,
C-35-21, Mohan Nagar,
Salem Steel Plant,
Salem, Tamil Nadu-636030.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,
15/1, Cubbon Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Date of Hearing : 06.03.2017/ 25.04.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 31.07.2015
CPIO's reply : 31.08.2015
First Appeal : 04.09.2015
FAA's Order : 24.12.2015
Complaint : 16.10.2015
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Bangalore, seeking information on six points including, inter alia, (i) a copy of the rules which prevented the payment of Performance Related Pay (PRP) to him even though he had scored 92% in the first and second quarters, which denotes excellent performance, and (ii) what are the marks assumed for the third and fourth quarters for calculating PRP in the year 2012-13.
CIC/VS/C/2015/900362/SB Page 1
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not respond to his appeal. The complainant stated that the CPIO did not reply in time, refused information without referring to the RTI Act, refused information which is available in the company and demanded Rs.60, to provide a copy of the Rules which had not been asked for. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the FAA to provide the information at the earliest, direct the CPIO to refund the amount of Rs.60/- which was collected illegally, to initiate suitable disciplinary action against the FAA and provide compensation to him.
Hearing on 06.03.2017:
3. Both the complainant S Arul Selvan and the respondent Capt. A. Ghani, CPIO, HAL attended the hearing through Video Conferencing.
4. The complainant submitted that he had, inter-alia, sought for a copy of the Rules which prevented the payment of PRP to him and the marks for the third and fourth quarters assumed for calculating the PRP in the year 2012-2013. However, no information in this regard has been provided to him by the respondent.
5. The respondent submitted that a point-wise reply as per the available records has been provided to the complainant vide letter dated 31.08.2015. The respondent further submitted that a copy of the Circular governing the payment of the PRP had been provided to the complainant along with the letter dated 31.08.2015. The respondent further stated that on receipt of the Notice of the Hearing, point-wise information had been provided to the complainant vide letter dated 01.03.2017.
Interim Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that correct and complete information has not been provided by the respondent to the complainant. Therefore, the CPIO, CIC/VS/C/2015/900362/SB Page 2 HAL is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. The CPIO, HAL is hereby directed to submit an explanation both by post and through e-mail at [email protected] before the Commission, on or before 11.04.2017, explaining why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
8. The CPIO, HAL is further directed to appear before the Commission through Video Conferencing on 25.04.2017 at 01:00 pm along with a copy of his written explanations.
9. The CPIO, HAL is also directed to inform if there is/ are other person(s) responsible for knowingly not providing complete information to the complainant, and if so, to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and to direct them to appear before the Commission on 25.04.2017 at 01:00 p.m. along with their written explanations.
Hearing on 25.04.2017:
10. The respondents, Capt. A. Ghani, CPIO, HAL and Shri M. M. Bebarta, Assistant General Manager (S & F), HAL were present in person.
11. The respondent, Capt. A. Ghani, has submitted his explanation dated 06.04.2017. The respondent, with respect to point no. 1 of the RTI application submitted that vide letter dated 31.08.2015, complete information was furnished to the complainant as the copies of the Circulars dated 17.01.2011 and 02.06.2011 pertaining to the entitlement of the PRP for the year 2012-13 were forwarded to him. With respect to point no. 2 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that on 08.03.2013, the complainant was dismissed from service and in accordance with the Company's policy as stated in Para 5 of the Circular dated 02.06.2011, he was barred from payment of the PRP for the period of one year prior to the date of dismissal. Accordingly, considering his disentitlement from the PRP, CIC/VS/C/2015/900362/SB Page 3 no Mutually Agreed Task Initiative (MATI) marks were assumed by the complainant, for the third and fourth quarters of the year 2012-13. Hence, the information sought was not available to be furnished to the complainant. The respondent also stated that complete information with respect to point nos. 5 and 6 of the RTI application has been provided to the complainant vide letters dated 29.06.2015 and 01.03.2017. Hence, there was no mala fide intention, on the part of the CPIO, HAL to deny information to the complainant. In view of this, the respondent requested the Commission to drop the show cause notice issued against the CPIO, HAL.
Decision
12. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, finds the explanation furnished by the CPIO, HAL satisfactory. The Commission observes that the amount of Rs. 60/-, on the basis of Rs. 2 per page for 30 pages, was legitimately sought from the complainant for furnishing information with respect to the Rules pertaining to the entitlement of the PRP. Therefore, this amount doesn't qualify for being refunded to the complainant. The Commission notes that since the complainant was dismissed from the service, he was disentitled from the PRP, as per Para 5 of the Circular dated 02.06.2011, and consequently, no MATI marks were assumed, for the third and fourth quarters of the year 2012-13. Thus, information was not provided to the complainant. However, since no MATI marks were assumed, the Commission observes that there was no reasons for the CPIO to deliberately withhold information. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was any mala fide intention on the part of Capt. A. Ghani, CPIO, HAL, to conceal the information from the complainant. As a result, in the absence of any mala fide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO. Hence, the Show Cause Notice issued against Capt. A. Ghani, CPIO, HAL is hereby dropped.
13. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
CIC/VS/C/2015/900362/SB Page 4
14. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S. S. Rohilla) Designated Officer CIC/VS/C/2015/900362/SB Page 5