Central Information Commission
Shri Anil Johry vs Npcil, Department Of Atomic Energy on 17 February, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00387, 388, 390 & 391-SM dated 11.09.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 17.02.2009
Appellant : Shri Anil Johry
Respondent: NPCIL, Department of Atomic Energy.
The Appellant is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri R.R. Kakde, is present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant has filed 4 appeals against the orders of the first Appellate Authority alleging that he has not been given adequate and complete information. All the four cases were taken together for hearing through video conferencing. In Appeal No. 00337, he had wanted to know a large number of information/comment/clarification on the question papers for the test conducted for selection of Hindi Translators and Senior Hindi Translators. In that, he also wanted to know about the norms of work fixed by the Company for such Translators. The CPIO declined to provide any information on the ground that the information sought was in the nature of an enquiry and, therefore, did not fall in the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this, he filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 8 September, 2007 which was rejected by the Appellate Authority in his order dated 9 December, 2007.
3. In Case No. 00390, he wanted to know about the action taken on his various letters addressed to the CMD and the Director (HR) of the Company. In reply, the CPIO had informed on 27.8.2007 that all the leave details sought by him in his three letters had already been provided to him. Nevertheless, he filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 11 September, 2007. The first Appellate Authority decided his appeal on 9 October, 2007 and rejected it on the ground that the CPIO had already provided the leave details.
4. In yet another case No. 00391 he had wanted information in application dated 15.2.2007 about the truth behind two letters written by Shri V.K. Saxena, Senior Manager, Rajbhasa. The CPIO in his reply dated 20.3.2007 denied the information on the ground that it related to assurance given by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and disclosing such information was exempt under Section 8(1) (c) of the RTI Act. He filed an appeal against this before the first Appellate Authority on 23 April, 2007 which the Appellate Authority decided in his order dated 22 May, 2007. He rejected the appeal, strangely by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, namely that the information sought would impede the process of investigation.
5. In the last case, No. 00388, the Appellant had wanted a number of details about the Hindi Workshop organized in the company and the various items purchased in connection with that workshop. In response to his request, the CPIO informed him on 27 August, 2007 that the information sought was investigative in nature and hence, could not be provided. He filed an Appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 10 September, 2007 which that Authority rejected being in agreement with the CPIO.
6. In all these four cases, the Appellant has come before the Commission in Second appeal.
7. We heard these cases through video conferencing. On a careful examination of the requests for information contained in all the four cases, we noted that the Appellant is, by and large, quite vague about the exact information he needs. In fact in many cases, he has asked for confirmation or clarification on his views rather than any specific information. We also find that both the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority have also been rather very casual while dealing with his request for information and dismissed it. The First Appellate Authority too has rejected his appeals in rather very brief orders without explaining sufficiently the grounds on which he had decided to reject those appeals. We would like to advise the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority to be more precise in replying to requests under the RTI Act and to pass reasoned and speaking orders.
8. In all these cases, however, we are of the view that the following information should be provided in addition to whatever has already been given:-
(i) Copies of the question papers on translation for the tests organized to select Hindi Translators and Senior Hindi Translators during the past 5 years.
(ii) Copy of the company directive/OM/Circular, laying down the work norms for Hindi Translators. However, if no such norms exist, the CPIO should categorically say so.
(iii) Information regarding the distribution of the items purchased in connection with conducting Hindi Workshop.
(iv) Copy of the circular/order laying down honorarium for speakers in the Hindi Workshops.
(v) Copy of file note/order as per which an assurance was given to the Parliamentary Standing Committee that the relevant vacant posts for implementation of Hindi will be filled within six months.
9. The above information be provided to the Appellant within 10 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. With the above directions we dispose off this appeal.
11. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar