Central Information Commission
Arti Garg vs Botanical Survey Of India, Kolkatta on 21 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650186, CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650189
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650191, CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650192
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650193, CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650194
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650197, CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650201
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650204, CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650206
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650207
Arti Garg .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Botanical Survey of India, CGO
Complex, 3rd MSO Building,
Block F, 5th 6th Floor, DF
Block, Sector I, Salt Lake
City, Kolkata - 700064 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.02.2025
Date of Decision : 20.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
and the respondent are common in the above cases, and subject-matter is
similar in nature, hence, the same are disposed of through a common order.
Page 1 of 28
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650186
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"1. Copy of the note of Dr S. S. Dash - Grievance Officer requesting Director BSI for Constituting factfinding committee after taking cognizance of Mr. Saurabh Sachan allegations against Dr Arti Garg (me)"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650189 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
Page 2 of 28
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Copy of the note of Dr. C. Murugan constituting/recommending Director BSI for constituting fact-finding committee headed by Dr S. S. Dash to visit CRC Prayagraj on March 23 & 24 for enquiring into facts of allegations laid by Mr. Saurabh Sachan against Dr Arti Garg (me)"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650191 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
Page 3 of 28The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Copy of the office note on which Director BSI approval was sought and thereafter Dr C Murugan HOO, BSI prepared note BSI-44/1/2023- Adnin/3883 dt 20th March 2023 declaring Dr. O N Maurya as Head of Office, CRC Prayagraj and Dr Arti Garg (myself) was directed to handover the charge to Dr ON Maurya"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650192 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:Page 4 of 28
"Copy of fact-finding report submitted by following three each member of the committee submitted to BSI Kolkata after their visit to CRC Allahabad on 23rd & 24th March 2023 for enquiry into facts of allegations made by Mr. Saurabh Sachan against Dr Arti Garg (myself):
1. Report of Dr S. S. Dash, Head of the committee
2. Report of Dr S K Singh, Member of the committee
3. Report of Dr J Jayanthi Member of the committee
4. Final Report Submitted by Dr. S. S. Dash to Director BSI"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650193 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:Page 5 of 28
"Copy of Six more Complaints against Dr Arti Garg (myself) given by CRC Staff to Mr. S. S. Dash Chairman of the three-member committee which came to CRC Prayagraj on 23rd & 24th of March 2023 to enquire into facts of allegations on complaint made by Mr. Saurabh Sachan against Dr Arti Garg (Myself)"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, Upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650194 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Copy of the Letter / Office Memorandum given to Mr Saurabh Sachan by Dr C Murugan on behalf of Director BSI or by any BSI Authority on his complaints made against Dr Arti Garg (myself) after report was submitted by fact finding committee Headed by Dr S S Dash which came Page 6 of 28 to CRC Prayagraj on 23rd or 24th March 2023 to enquire into facts of allegations"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650197 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Copy of Background papers and approval note of Director on the basis of which Dr C Murugan HOO BSI issued letter BSI-37/1/2020/2023- 24/Admn/2586 dt 28-06-2023 to me (Arti Garg) informing that I was relived from duties of HOO CRC due to my inability to handle the administrative matter"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
Page 7 of 28"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650201 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Copy of Approval Note of Director BSI citing this note Dr S S Dash issued letter to me (Arti Garg) by sending letter BSI-288/5/2023-Tech/1569 dt 28th February 2023 that Director BSI has not approved the proposed tour of Arti Garg to Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 29th March 2023 to 11th April 2023 of ARP: 2022-23"Page 8 of 28
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650204 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Background papers and Copy of Approval Note of Director BSI on whose basis Dr C Murugan HOO BSI issued letter BSI-37/1/2020/2023- 24/Admn/2577 dt 27-06-2023 reprimanding me (Arti Garg) citing various lapses and saying that any further violation will attract suitable action against me"Page 9 of 28
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650206 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Copy of the just concluded Audit report for Period 2020-21 to 2022-23 submitted to CRC Allahabad by Shri Avijit Jana Sr Audit Officer"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you Page 10 of 28 that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BSOIK/A/2023/650207 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Few Lady Staff of CRC Prayagraj had given written complaint against Mr. Saurabh Sachan for Harassment at Working Place which comes under Prevention of Sexual Harassment of working Women under workplace to Dr S S Das, Scientist E, Grievance Officer, who came to CRC Prayagraj along with Dr S K Singh and Dr J Jayanthi for enquiry on 23rd & 24th March 2023.
More than 110 days have lapsed since submission of complaint.
Since Dr S S Das was not part of competent committee to take decision in such complaint, whether he has submitted the complaint to Head of Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Working Women at BSI Head Office. If not the reason thereof.Page 11 of 28
As per OM 11013/7/2016-EsttA-III dt 22.12.2016 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension of Govt of India, (Copy Attached) enquiry in such cases should be completed in 30 days but not later than 90 days.
Also in fourth para of OM it is mentioned that All Ministries/Departments shall furnish a monthly report to the Ministry of Women & Child Development giving details of number of Complaints received, disposed of and action taken in the case.
Whether these two complaints were included in March2023 monthly report sent to Ministry of Women & Child Development, if not the reason thereof."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your requests received through RTI-MIS portal vide registration Nos. BSOIK/R/E/23/00020-25 dated 13/07/2023, BSOIK/R/E/23/00026-29 dated 14/07/2023 and BSOIK/R/E/23/00032 dated 17/07/2023; in this connection, the undersigned is to inform you that, the information(s) sought by you are exempted under rule (8) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, that the disclosing information/document would impede the process of ascertaining the actual fact as the process has not yet been finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with her husband Shri Rajesh Garg, in person. Respondent: Shri Gopal Garg, CPIO/Scientist C, appeared through video conference.Page 12 of 28
The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was denied by the respondent arbitrarily under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
The appellant submitted that she had filed detailed written submissions on dated 07.02.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was served to the respondent through email. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
I reported at Botanical Survey of India Allahabad on 14.02.2021 and took charge as Head of Office (HOO) on 01.09.2020, I was divested from post of 1100 on 20.03.2023 by order sent by Dr. C Murugan, HOO BSI Headquarters with approval from Dr. AA Mao BSI Director in the name of free and fare fact finding inquiry to be conducted against me on complaint of Dr. Saurabh Sachan (Bot. Asstt.). Dr. ON Maurya, Scientist D and my junior, who reported at CRC Allahabad on 12.10.2021 was declared HOO CRC in my place although Dr. ON Maurya was also one of the complainants against me. Soon after his posting at CRC Allahabad Dr. Maurya had started sending baseless complaints against me without my knowledge directly to Hqrs. Dr. Saurabh Sachan was earlier posted in Kolkata and transferred to CRC Allahabad soon after Dr. Maurya joined at CRC Allahabad.
Humiliation faced by me before, during and after fact finding inquiry at CRC Allahabad before my transfer to NRC, Dehradun on 01.09.2023.
1. My removal from post of HOO CRC Allahabad by Director BSI, Dr. AA Mao by taking cognizance of baseless complaint of Dr. Saurabh sachan which after inquiry was found False and fabricated.
2. Declaration of Dr. ON Maurya as HOO CRC Allahabad who himself was one of the complainant against me and was working under me.
3. Suo Moto charge taken by ON Maurya through email after office hours though in the office order it was mentioned 'Dr Arti Garg, Scientist-E, BSI, CRC, is requested to hand over the charge of Head of Office. CRC, BSI, Allahabad to Dr. O.N. Maurya, Scientist-D after observing all the formalities.Page 13 of 28
4. Soon after taking charge Dr. Maurya locked my HOO room without making alternate arrangement for my sitting in the office. On the first day of inquiry on 23.3.2023 I reported in office at 9:30 AM but Dr. Maurya did not allow me to enter the HOO room and I was compelled to sit on Peon's chair outside the HOO room in a pitiable condition.
5. When the committee arrived and one of the members saw me sitting outside pathetically, he directed Dr. Maurya to provide me some alternate sitting place.
6. On arrival all the committee members went inside the conference room and called each and every staff together (not one by one) including Dr Saurabh Sachan, the complainant, for informal introduction and general address, except only me.
7. I kept waiting anxiously from 9:30 AM till 3:30 PM on 23.03.2023, the first day of committee visit and during this period the committee kept talking to the office staff members, but did not allocate any time slot to me, not even called me to seek my view on Saurabh's allegations which was their prime purpose. My anxiety and nervousness aggravated since I was ill-treated by Dr. Maurya before the entire staff, not even permitted to take out my water bottle on repeated requests as I was medically advised to drink only boiled water post Covid-19 attack. I got badly dehydrated by 3:30 PM and my BP shot up to 210, sugar level shot above 300, suffered panic attack with chest pain and was admitted in Jagriti hospital MICU by office staff and my husband.
8. None of the committee members tried to phone me, see me, ascertain my health or even about the facts of the complaints. Next morning on 24.1.2021 as soon as I came to know through some staff that the committee has shortened their visit (not informed to me) and would leave by 2:30 PM. I was compelled to take discharge hurriedly and on my own risk and volition.
9. I rushed from hospital to face the committee and arrived in CRC, but Dr. ON Maurya objected that he will not allow me to face the committee without fitness certificate. I still entered the conference room before the Page 14 of 28 committee but could discuss only on few points with the committee as they were in hurry to leave and catch return flight.
10.On my repeated requests to Dr ON Maurya to allow me to take out my personal belongings from the 100 гоom, on 29.1.2021, Dr Maurya constituted a 7 member committee of all junior staff of CRC, from Scientist C to Upper Division Clerk including store keeper, to open the room in their presence with videography and hand over my personal belongings to me, right in front of all 7 committee members (who were my staff). Dr. Maurya further humiliated me badly by listing my personal items water bottle, glass, pen etc, and my personal wallet was opened and money counted.
11. I was immensely humiliated when even after written request to allow me to use English toilet (only one constructed in my tenure as 1100) because I had undergone bilateral knee replacement surgery and was recommended not to use Indian squat position toilet by Doctor. I was told to go home for this purpose and the office toilet was kept locked by Dr. Maurya, HOO CRC.
12.Quietly, an audio device was planted in the room allotted to me for working in office, which I came to know only when I was questioned about an audio clip by Dr AA Mao (by email) on 18.7.2023 sent to him. I requested the Director Dr. Mao to direct the HOO CRC to lodge FIR with local police immediately for investigating this case of intrusion in my privacy as it was related to my personal security and privacy within office campus and my working room. But no action was taken in this matter either by the Hqrs. of by the HOO of CRC Dr. ON Maurya.
13.The 3 member committee was constituted on 20.3.2023 to enquire into the facts of allegations and was asked to submit the inquiry report on the points raised by the complainant within 15 days from the issue of the order i.e. by 05.04.2023. But as informed by CPIO through RTI inquiry that the committee submitted their report on 30.5.2023 and no extension was taken by the committee for this.
14.The committee inquiry report was not shared to me even after repeated requests made by me to the Director BSI, not even revealed till date and I am still in dark.Page 15 of 28
15.My transfer was also done from CRC Allahabad to NRC Dehradun on 01.09.2023 with stand release orders giving an impression that I was punished.
After transfer on 01.09.2023 from CRC Allahabad to NRC Dehradun my harassment continues I was promoted from Scientist D to Sci-E on 04.10.2019 under FCS 12(5) period (merit promotion) which implied that my grading throughout the tenure was above 9 out of 10.
Deliberate downgrading of my APAR grades depriving my promotion under FCS-12(5) from Scientist E to Sci-F as follows:
APAR for Grades of Grades of Remarks
years Reporting Reviewing
2018-19 9.20 9.20 -
2019-20 9.52 9.52 -
2020-21 9.40 9.40 -
2021-22 7.55 7.55 Both reported and reviewed by Dr. AA
Mao, Director BSI
2022-23 7.80 7.80 Not worked under reporting authority
Dr. MU Sherief and reviewed by Dr. AA
Mao, Director BSI.
2023-24 8.6 7.79 Reported by HOO NRC Dehradun and
reviewed (downgraded) by Dr. AA Mao
Converting 191 days into 'Earned Leave with mala fide intentions by Dr. C Murugan 1HOO, BSI Hqrs, after taking approval of Director BSI, of depriving me from due terminal benefits and after suppressing the proper leave statement issued to me on 15.7.2024 with 212 EL at credit, for the periods when I was on sanctioned tours/sanctioned leaves / present in office or on HOO duty associated works and local visits as chief Guest / resource person/meetings/examiners in various institutions and short local plant collection trips by overlooking my justifications provided through letter nos. BSI/NRC/AG/2023/PF/91/946 dated 21.3.2024 and BSI/NRC/AG/2023/PF/91/447 dated 20.9.24 submitted with Page 16 of 28 documentary evidences which were extracted from my personal records after cumbersome searching of eaca email, photograph of events, file, diary, registers and note books etc. 1 toiled day and night for extracting date wise documentary evidences as my request sent through proper channel to provide copy of official records on urgent basis on or before 18.9.24 connected to the Show cause notice issued to me so as to enable me to reply/justify before 20.9.24' vide letter no BSI/NRC/AG/2023/PF/91/425 dated 17.9.2024:
Addressed to Director BSI Reminder sent to Dr. Vinay Ranjan present HOO CRC Allahabad and Dr. C Murugan HOO BSI. 11qrs, dated 18.9.2024 Last reminder sent to the Director BSI with copy to Dr. SS Dash Sci-F Iqrs and Grievance officer BSI, Dr. Vinay Ranjan HOO CRC and Dr. C Murugan HOO BSI, were completely ignored.
My recent request to Director BSI vide letter BSI/NRC/AG/2023/PF/91/ dated 27.01.2025 with justification of 191 EL leave not taken (except 5 El. on L.TC) has been sent Through Proper Channel with documentary evidences (Enclosures 1-71 in 157 pages) either to recall office letter BSI- 65/225/06-24/Estt/103 treating 191 days as El or Institute a High-Level Committee under the aegis of MOEF&Ce to inquire into the facts of allegations and reasons for ignoring the justifications given by me is still not responded. The request for instituting committee was also marked to Dr SS Dash, Scientist "F" and Grievance Officer."
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already replied to the RTI applications and denied the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
The respondent further submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 10.02.2025 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:Page 17 of 28
Reply of Complaints from Dr. Arti Garg, Scientist- E, BSI, NRC, Dehradun A. I reported at Botanical Survey of India Allahabad on 14.02.2021 and took charge as Head of Office (HoO) on 01.09.2020, I was divested from post of HoO on 20.03.2023 by order sent by Dr. C Murugan, HoO BSI Headquarters with approval from Dr. A. A. Mao BSI Director in the name of free and fair fact finding inquiry to be conducted against me on complaint of Dr. Saurabh Sachan (Bot. Asstt.). Dr. ON Maurya, Scientist D and my junior, who reported at CRC Allahabad on 12.10.2021 was declared HoO CRC in my place although Dr. ON Maurya was also one of the complainants against me. Soon after his posting at CRC Allahabad Dr. Maurya had started sending baseless complaints against me without my knowledge directly to Hqrs. Dr. Saurabh Sachan was earlier posted in Kolkata and transferred to CRC Allahabad soon after Dr. Maurya joined at CRC Allahabad.
Reply: The information provided by Dr. Arti Garg, Scientist E, BSI-NRC, are false and contradictory. She joined BSI-CRC, Allahabad on transfer from BSI, Central National Herbarium, Howrah in the year 2011. She took charges as HoO on 01.09.2020 and was divested on 20.03.2023 as per Rule. Dr. Saurabh Sachan, Botanical Assistant was transferred on 07 April 2021 (copy encloses) and joined BSI-CRC, Allahabad in May, 2021, while Dr. O.N. Maurya, Scientist 'E' was transferred to BSI-CRC, Allahabad in September 2021 and joined on 12.10.2021 (copy enclosed).
B. Humiliation faced by me before, during and after fact finding inquiry at CRC Allahabad before my transfer to NRC, Dehradun on 01.09.2023.
1. My removal from post of HoO CRC Allahabad by Director BSI, Dr. AA Mao by taking cognizance of baseless complaint of Dr. Saurabh Sachan which after inquiry was found False and fabricated.
Reply: Statements of point no.1 and 14, are contradictory to each other as she has mentioned in point no.14 that she has not been provided with the copy of Fact-finding Committee Report, till date then, how did she come to know that complaints of Dr. Saurabh Sachan was false and fabricated as mentioned in point no.1?
Page 18 of 282. Declaration of Dr. O.N. Maurya as HoO CRC, Allahabad who himself was one of the complainants against me and was working under me.
Reply: False and baseless, Dr. O.N. Maurya, Scientist 'E', BSI-CRC never lodged any complaint to Director, Botanical Survey of India. It is to mention here that, Dr. N. Stalin, Botanist, BSI-CRC, Allahabad (now at working at BSI-WRC, Pune) who was working as DDO, BSI-CRC under Dr. Arti Garg had complained to D/BSI on 23.2.2023 mentioned regarding pressure by Dr. Arti Garg to pass bills without entry in the stock register, Xerox bill and bills without GST no. (copy enclosed) on which D/BSI instructed Dr. Garg to stick to the rules.
3. Suo Moto charge taken by ON Maurya through email after office hours though in the office order it was mentioned Dr Arti Garg, Scientist-E, BSI, CRC, is requested to hand over the charge of Head of the Office, CRC, BSI, Allahabad to Dr. O.N. Maurya, Scientist-D after observing all the formalities.
Reply: False statement. Dr. Arti Garg herself has handed over the charge of HoO, BSI-CRC to Dr. O.N. Maurya through e-mail on 21.3.2023 at 1.19 pm without the handing over of files and key of HoO room as she was ill on 21.03.23 to 22.03.23 (copy enclosed).
4. Soon after taking charge Dr. Maurya locked my HoO room without making alternate arrangement for my sitting in the office. On the first day of inquiry on 23.3.2023, I reported in office at 9:30 AM, but Dr. Maurya did not allow me to enter the HoO room and I was compelled to sit on Peon's chair outside the HoO room in a pitiable condition.
Reply: False statement as she has been provided room no. 17 of the office with all amenities like Computer, A.C., table, revolving chair, visitor chairs etc. No one has compelled her to sit in peon's chair outside the HoO room.
5. When the committee arrived and one of the members saw me sitting outside pathetically, he directed Dr. Maurya to provide me some alternate sitting place.
Reply: False, as mentioned in point number 4, she was allotted room no. 17 of the office with all amenities including table, executive chair etc, that is why sitting outside is best known to her and nobody has compelled her to sit outside the HoO chamber.
Page 19 of 286. On arrival, all the committee members went inside the conference room and called each and every staff together (not one by one) including Dr Saurabh Sachan, the complainant, for informal introduction and general address, except only me.
Reply: False and fabricated. On day one after arrival of the committee on 23.03.2023, called each and every member for general introduction, Dr. Arti Garg reported late as she was ill (copy enclosed)
7. I kept waiting anxiously from 9:30 AM till 3:30 PM on 23.03.2023, the first day of committee visit and during this period the committee kept talking to the office staff members, but did not allocate any time slot to me, not even called me to seek my view on Saurabh's allegations which was their prime purpose. My anxiety and nervousness aggravated since I was ill- treated by Dr. Maurya before the entire staff, not even permitted to take out my water bottle on repeated requests as I was medically advised to drink only boiled water post Covid-19 attack. I got badly dehydrated by 3:30 PM and my BP shot up to 210, sugar level shot above 300, suffered panic attack with chest pain and was admitted in Jagriti hospital MICU by office staff and my husband.
Reply: Fabricated and false information as already mentioned in point no. 3, she was ill from 21.03.2023 to 22.03.2023 and became fit by CGHS on 23.03.2023 at 1.09 PM (copy enclosed). Though, she came to office on 23.03.2023 at 9.30 am but she became fit at 01.09 pm, as per rule she needs to provide a fitness certificate before joining the office.
Also to mention that no body ill-treated to her including Dr. O.N. Maurya. Being HoO, BSI-CRC, Dr. O.N. Maurya himself sent her along with Officer and staff including her husband to the hospital in office vehicle on 23.03.2023 (copy enclosed).
8. None of the committee members tried to phone me, see me, ascertain my health or even about the facts of the complaints. Next morning on 24.03.2023, as soon as I come to know through some staff that the committee has shortened their visit (not informed to me) and would leave by 2.30 pm, I was compelled to take discharge hurriedly and, on my risk, and volition.
Reply: Misleading information, as all the members of the Fact-Finding Committee including Chairman and Dr. O.N. Maurya, HoO, BSI-CRC were Page 20 of 28 enquiring over phone from Dr. A.K. Verma, Scientist C and the then medical officer of CRC about the health of Dr. Arti Garg. The Fact-Finding Committee members were busy in personal interview with each staff one by one.
9. I rushed from hospital to face the committee and arrived in CRC, but Dr. O.N. Maurya objected that he will not allow me to face the committee without fitness certificate. I still entered the conference room before the committee but could discuss only on few points with the committee as they were in hurry to leave and catch return flight.
Reply: False information. As per rule she has to bring her medical fitness certificate as she was ill on 22.03.2023 to 23.03.2023.
10. On my repeated request to Dr O.N. Maurya to allow me to take out my personal belongings from the HoO room, on 29.03.2023. Dr Maurya constituted a 7-member committee of all junior staff of CRC, from Scientist C to Upper Divisional Clerk including store keeper to open the room in their presence with videography and hand over my personal belongings to me, right from all 7 committee member who (were my staff). Dr Maurya further humiliated me badly by listing my personal items water bottle, glass, pen etc and personal wallet was opened and money counted.
Reply: False information as she (Dr. Arti Garg) had said to D/BSI over phone that her personal money and jewellery worth of lakhs are kept in HoO chamber and key were with her only till May, 2023. Then, Dr. O.N. Maurya constituted a committee to take out her personal belonging and extract CCTV footage to provide to Dr. Arti Garg as requested by her.
11. I was immensely humiliated when even alter written request to allow me to use English toilet (only one constructed in my tenure as HoO) because I had undergone bilateral knee replacement surgery and was recommended not to use Indian squat position toilet by Doctor. I was told to go home for this purpose and the office toilet was kept locked by Dr. Maurya, HoO, CRC.
Reply: False as she never told anything about this nor produced any certificate to office from doctor to use only western toilet.
12. Quietly an audio device was planted in the room allotted to me for working in office, which I came to know only when I was questioned about an audio clip by Dr AA Mao (by email) on 18.7.2023 sent to him. I requested Page 21 of 28 the Director, Dr. Mao to direct the HoO, CRC to lodge FIR with local police immediately for investigating this case of intrusion in my privacy as it was related to my personal security and privacy within office campus and my working room. But no action was taken in this matter either by the HoO of CRC Dr. ON Maurya.
Reply: No such audio device was planted in her chamber. However, Director, BSI and Dr. S.S. Dash, Scientist 'F' & Grievance Officer, received an audio clip from anonymous source where purportedly conversation with Dr. Arti Garg and some of staff members are conspiring to tarnish the image of Organization and Senior Officer through false and fabricated allegations. Also conspiring to destabilize administrative setup of BSI. In this regard a formal complaint was lodged against her at Directorate and Ministry of Environment and Forests & Climate Change. Therefore, as Dr. Garg was voluntarily talking to some person against the organization, she was supposed to lodge a complaint if those conversation was not true.
13. The 3-member committee was constituted on 20.3.2023 to enquire into the facts of allegations and was asked to submit the inquiry report on the points raised by the complainant within 15 days from the issue of the order i.e. by 05.04.2023. But as informed by CPIO through RTI inquiry that the committee submitted their report on 30.5.2023 and no extension was taken by the committee for this.
Reply: False as fact finding committee chairman had informed and taken verbal approval from D/BSI about delay in compiling the fact-finding committee report.
14. The committee inquiry report was not shared to me even after repeated requests made by me to the Director BSI, not even revealed till date and I am still in dark.
Reply: False as it was a fact-finding committee report and it is the purview of competent authority to share the fact-finding committee report or not.
15. My transfer was also done from CRC Allahabad to NRC Dehradun on 01.09.2023 with stand release orders giving an impression that I was punished.
Reply: False information as Dr. Arti Garg remained at CRC, Allahabad for more than 12 years then her transfer was done in public interest.
Page 22 of 28It is also to mention here that, Dr. Arti Garg has already filed a writ petition challenging her transfer to BSI-NRC, Dehradun in CAT, Allahabad bench with O.A. No. 719 of 2023 which is still pending and next date of hearing is 20.2.2025. In this Petion, she had filed an amendment application to add the names of Dr. S.S. Dash, Scientist F & Grievance officer, BSI; Dr. O.N. Maurya, Scientist E, BSI-CRC, Allahabad; Dr. A. K. Verma then Scientist C, BSI-CRC and now Associate Professor, Siddarth University, Kapilvastu, U.P.; Dr. Saurabh Sachan, Bot. Assistant, BSI-ERC, Shillong and Dr. N. Stalin, Botanist, WRC, Pune (copy enclosed) for conspiring against her.
C. After transfer on 01.09.2023 from CRC Allahabad to NRC Dehradun my harassment continues I was promoted from Scientist D to Sci-E on 04.10.2019 under FCS 12(5) period (merit promotion) which implied that my grading throughout the tenure was above 9 out of 10.
Deliberate downgrading of my APAR grades depriving my promotion under FCS-12(5) from Scientist E to Sci-F as follows:
APAR for Grades of Grades of Remarks
years Reporting Reviewing
2018-19 9.20 9.20 -
2019-20 9.52 9.52 -
2020-21 9.40 9.40 -
2021-22 7.55 7.55 Both reported and reviewed by Dr. AA
Mao, Director BSI
2022-23 7.80 7.80 Not worked under reporting authority
Dr. MU Sherief and reviewed by Dr. AA
Mao, Director BSI.
2023-24 8.6 7.79 Reported by HOO NRC Dehradun and
reviewed (downgraded) by Dr. AA Mao
Reply: This is not true; in past too she got below the 8 marks (copy enclosed). Regarding downgrading of her APAR and her promotion, Dr. Arti Garg had filed a case in CAT, Nainital circuit bench with OA no. 2635 of 2024 and had Page 23 of 28 represented to Secretary, MoEF & CC, New Delhi in which Secretary, MoEF & CC, New Delhi vide his letter no. 02/01/2022-CSB dated 9.08.2024 (copy enclosed) had disposed the matter in compliance of CAT, Nainital circuit bench order dated 12.7.2024.
D. Converting 191 days into Earned Leave' with mala fide intentions by C. Murugan, HoO, BSI, Hqrs after taking approval of Director, BSI, of depriving me from due terminal benefits and after suppressing the proper leave statement issued to me on 15.7.2024 with 212 EL at credit for the periods when I was on sanctioned tours/ sanctioned leaves/ present in office or on HoO duty associated works and local visits as Chief guest / resource person / meetings /examiners in various institutions and short local plant collection trips by overlooking my justifications provided through letter nos. BSI/NRC/AG/2023/PF/91/425 dated 17.09.2024 /2023/n791/046 dated 21.3.2024 and BSI/NRC/AG/2023/PF/91/447 dated 20.09.2024, submitted with documentary evidences which were extracted from my personal records after cumbersome searching of each email, photographs of events, file, diary, registers and note book etc. Reply: Fabricated information regarding deduction of her 191 earned leave as it is to mention here that all the official records have been checked and then leave orders are issued.
1 toiled day and night for extracting date wise documentary evidences as my request sent through proper channel to provide copy of official records on urgent basis on or before 18.9.24 connected to the Show cause notice issued to me so as to enable me to reply/justify before 20.9.24' vide letter no BSI/NRC/AG/2023/PF/91/425 dated 17.9.2024:
Addressed to Director BSI Reminder sent to Dr. Vinay Ranjan present HOO CRC Allahabad and Dr. C Murugan HOO BSI. 11qrs, dated 18.9.2024 Last reminder sent to the Director BSI with copy to Dr. SS Dash Sci-F Iqrs and Grievance officer BSI, Dr. Vinay Ranjan HOO CRC and Dr. C Murugan HOO BSI, were completely ignored.
My recent request to Director BSI vide letter BSI/NRC/AG/2023/PF/91/ dated 27.01.2025 with justification of 191 EL leave not taken (except 5 El. on L.TC) has been sent Through Proper Channel with documentary evidences (Enclosures 1- Page 24 of 28 71 in 157 pages) either to recall office letter BSI-65/225/06-24/Estt/103 treating 191 days as El or Institute a High-Level Committee under the aegis of MOEF&Ce to inquire into the facts of allegations and reasons for ignoring the justifications given by me is still not responded. The request for instituting committee was also marked to Dr SS Dash, Scientist "F" and Grievance Officer.
Reply: Very few records of her leave outside tour are available at BSI- Headquarters. Whatever official documents were present at Headquarter are shared with her. The rest of documents which Dr. Arti Garg claiming are not available at BSI-Headquarters and are only available with her. Therefore, whatever documents she has sent on 06.02.2025, is subject to verification and if, found correct the revised statement of EL will be shared with her."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought information regarding constituting fact-finding committee headed by Dr S. S. Dash who visited CRC Prayagraj on March 23 & 24 for enquiring into facts of allegations laid by Mr. Saurabh Sachan against Dr Arti Garg and related issues. The respondent denied the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. However, they did not give satisfactory reasons as to why the release of information sought in the above RTI applications would hamper the investigation process. The appellant being an affected party is entitled to get a copy of the fact-finding report which has not been given to her till the date of hearing.
The respondent submitted that the Committee has submitted fact finding report to the Director on 30.05.2023 and since then it is pending with them. The appellant pleaded that fact finding report is not given to her and she has been harassed by the officials of the respondent public authority. She informed that her retirement is due in the month of September 20025. It is noted that more than one and half years have elapsed and no further action was taken by Page 25 of 28 the competent authority/Director of the respondent public authority on the said fact-finding report. Thus, it is visible that fact-finding report is being used by the respondent authority to harass the appellant and is not being closed so as to use it as a tool to delay/deny her retirement dues.
As regards denial of information by claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, the Commission would like to refer the following observations made by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. (WP(C) 3114/2007) as under:
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO in W.P. (C) 295 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 has made the following observations:
"19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.Page 26 of 28
A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation...............
22. ...........The mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would "impede" or even on a lesser threshold "hamper" or "interfere with" the investigation. This burden the Respondent has failed to discharge."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Adesh Kumar vs Union of India & Ors. on 16 December, 2014" has held that "10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the FAA also indicates that the aspect as to how the disclosure of information would impede prosecution has not been considered. Merely, citing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act would not absolve the public authority from discharging its onus as required to claim such exemption. Thus, neither the FAA nor the CIC has questioned the Public Authority as to how the disclosure of information would impede the prosecution."
In view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in the absence of proper justification of exemptions claimed by the respondent, the Commission finds that denial of information on the purported grounds of Section 8(1)(h) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly set aside. Therefore, the respondent is directed to revisit the above RTI applications and provide the revised point-wise information to the appellant strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of these orders. Failing which the respondent shall Page 27 of 28 stand show caused for penal action including disciplinary proceeding and also award of compensation to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Botanical Survey of India, CGO Complex, 3rd MSO Building, Block F, 5th 6th Floor, DF Block, Sector I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700064 Page 28 of 28 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)