Central Information Commission
Abhishek Singh vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 10 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ESICO/A/2022/643640
Abhishek Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Employees' State Insurance
Corporation, Head Quarters
RTI Cell, Panchadeep Bhawan,
CIG Marg, New Delhi-110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/04/2023
Date of Decision : 06/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 12/04/2022
First appeal filed on : 04/05/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 01/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"with reference to ESIC headquarter letter no. F.no.: Z-11/11/2/Misc/2016- Med- VI dated 01.02.2022 subject mentioned sexual harassment case - Smt. Kavita ANS
- reg. (copy attached) 1
1.Provide the action taken report regarding this letter from dated 01.02.2022 to till date.
2.How much has been lost to the Government exchequer due to this wrong promotion given to Shri Jai Prakash ANS against the rules and how will this loss to Government exchequer be compensated?
3. Which officers were held accountable for wrong promotion given to Shri Jai Prakash and loss to the exchequer?
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 12.4.2022 stating as under Point Information/Reply No. 1 Seeing action taken report under RTI Act is not an information in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Hence, it cannot be provided. However, it is information that further action in regard to this office letter dated 01.02.2022 is pending at the level of authorities concerned. 2 Sh. Jai Prakash, ANS has been paid pay & Allowances of the promoted post actually held by him although wrongly promoted by the authority concerned. Hence, the contention of the applicant regarding loss to the Corporation is not based on facts. Furthermore, the information as sought under the point is clarificatory in nature which is not an information in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
3 Regarding loss the exchequer, the information is already given under point no. 2 above. However, the rest of the information as sought under this point pertains to ESIC Model Hospital, Gurugram and the point may be referred to ESIC MH Gurugram for reply.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.05.2022. FAA's order dated 01.08.2022, held as under;-
"With reference to your office letter no. ESICO/A/E/22/00356 dated 05.07.2022 wherein First Appeal in respect of Sh. Abhishek Singh was forwarded to this branch for necessary action. In this connection, it is informed that the applicant has already inspected the file related to the matter on 02.02.2022, hence, his request for re-inspection of the file is not found to be accepted by the DPIO.2
However, the updated information in respect of the aforesaid appeal dated 04.05.2022, is as under:-
Point Information/Reply No. 1 Seeing action taken report under RTI Act is not an information in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Hence, it cannot be provided. However, it is information that further action in regard to this office letter dated 01.02.2022 is pending at the level of authorities concerned i.e. RO Delhi/MS Gurugram.
2 Sh. Jai Prakash, ANS has been paid pay & Allowances of the promoted post actually held by him although his promotion has been reconsidered and directions in this regard have already been issued to the respective authorities vide letter dated 01.02.2022.
Hence, the contention of the applicant regarding loss to the Corporation is not based on facts. Furthermore, the information as sought under the point is clarificatory in nature which is not an information in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
For the above reasons, the information is not available in material form, hence, cannot be provided.
3 Information as sought under this point pertains to RO Delhi and the point may be referred to RO Delhi for reply.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Represented by Maninder Singh, Assistant along with Sanjay kumar, Dy. Director and Prabhat Dua, Assistant Director & DPIO present in person.
The Appellant at the outset stated that the genesis of the instant RTI Application was alleged illegal appointment of the concerned third party i.e. Shri Jai Prakash ANS against the rules and on account of this , how much has been lost to the Government exchequer; on the basis of the wrong DPC report. He further stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that correct desired information has not been provided to him till date ignoring the fact that Appellant's wife was an aggrieved party.3
The DPIO did not contest the allegations raised by the Appellant and in fact , he admitted to the wrong doings in the DPC; however, he apprised the Commission that a point wise reply has already been provided to the Appellant. At the behest of the Commission, he agreed to intimate the broad outcome of the action taken on his complaint against point no. 1 of the RTI application to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the submissions of both the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to alleged wrong appointment of averred third party and further seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO supplemented with discussion during hearing finds to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Here, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] where in it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and 4 opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of Appellant/ Complainant and advises him to pursue the matter through proper channel. Nonetheless, as a matter of limited relief and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to intimate the broad outcome of the cation taken on the averred letter/representation in response to point no. 1 after liaisoning with the concerned wing. The said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6