Central Information Commission
Mr. Rajesh Gouhari vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 29 December, 2010
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000684AD
CIC/WB/A/2010/000912AD
Date of Hearing(s) : December 23, 2010 & December 29, 2010
Date of Decision : December 29, 2010
Parties:
Applicants
1) Shri Rajesh Gouhari
H.No.A1/107
Janakpuri
New Delhi 110 058
The Applicant was present in the first case.
Represented by : Shri M.L. Gouhari, Applicant's father in the second case
Respondent
EdCIL (India) Limited
Ed. CIL House
18A, Sector 16A
Noida 201 301
Represented by : Shri U.S.Gaikwad, PIO, Dr.Dilip Pangaumane, Appellate Authority, Shri
Bishwambhar, Manager and Shri Aditya Ranjan, Sr. Ex. Legal in the first case
Represented by : Shri U.S.Gaikwad, PIO, Shri K.V.L. Narasimham, Dir (P) representing Appellate
Authority, Shri Bishwambhar , Manager and Shri Aditya Ranjan, Sr. Exe. Legal in the second case.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
The hearing is adjourned for reasons given in the decision.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000684AD
CIC/WB/A/2010/000912AD
ORDER
CIC/WB/A/2010/000684AD Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.6.11.09 with the Chief Vigilance Officer, EdCil (India) Ltd seeking information against 2 points. Shri U.S.Gaikwad, PIO replied on 8.1.10 furnishing point wise information. The information sought and the reply provided are given below:
S.No. Information Sought Reply provided
i. Copy of the investigation report with complete Copy of the investigation report with complete
file noting in respect of the investigations file noting in respect of the investigations
conducted by vigilance department of EdCIL on conducted by vigilance department of EdCIL on
his complaint dt.26.9.08 regarding irregularities the complaint dt.26.9.08 regarding irregularities
in appointment of Ms.P.Jayanthi, Manager in appointment of Ms.P.Jayanthi, Manager
9Finance), EdCIL (Finance), forms part of PIDR complaint
received from CVC/MHRD. The matter after
investigation has been referred back to MHRD and the decision is still awaited. The information is denied u/s 8(1)( h) of the RTI Act.
ii. What action has been taken by the management Action taken by the management of EdCIL and of EdCIL on the investigations report? Please the file noting cannot be provided at this stage provide complete file noting with regard to the as explained in reply to point no.(i) above and is decision taken by the management on the denied u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. investigation report.
2. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.9.1.10 with the Appellate Authority stating that he had not received any information. Shri D.Singh, Appellate Authority replied on 11.3.10 stating that the information sought regarding the appointment of Manager(F) is one of the issues contained in PIDR Complaints referred to CVC/MHRD and as per the Office Order No.33/5/2004 of CVC, Govt. of India has authorized CVC as the 'designated authority' to receive written complaints for disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office and to recommend appropriate action. So, the application is being transferred to CVC. Being aggrieved with the reply, Applicant filed a second appeal dt.30.4.10 before CIC.
CIC/WB/A/2010/000912AD
3. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.3.4.10 with the PIO, EdCIL India Limited and Shri U.S.Gaikwad, PIO replied on 4.5.10. The information sought and reply provided are given below:
S.No. Information Sought Reply provided i. Copy of reply received from US (Vigilance) The information sought is relating to PIDR
MHRD in reply to letter No.20/2008Vig complaint received from CVC through dt.26.6.09 MHRD. As we have yet to receive any final view/decision in PIDR case the information is denied u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.
ii. As regards some of the remarks given by No information is available in this office CMD as per para 2 of the said letter regarding the point No.2. Therefore there dt.26.6.09 whether these were put up to the is NIL information to be provided under Secretary, MHRD or the Minister of HRD. If section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. so, their notings/observations may please be supplied with the complete file and notings.
iii. What prompted CMD EdCIL Mrs.Anju The reference does not fall within the Banerjee to address letter DO. definition of information. Therefore, no No.29\0(142)/2009.Admn dt.20.10.09 to Shri information to be provided u/s 2(f) of RTI Amit Khare, JS/CVO, MHRD after receipt of Act, 2005. CVC clear cut directions dt.8.10.09 to transfer back Shri Rajesh Gouhari to the Headquarters of EdCIL at Noida with immediate effect.
iv. CMD EdCIL only knows the designation of The reference does not fall within the Shri Rajesh Gouhari but neither seen his definition of information. Therefore, no performance nor his behaviour towards fellow information to be provided u/s 2(f) of RTI employees. How is it that CMD has termed Act, 2005.
Shri Rajesh Gouhari as indisciplined employee in her above letter dt.20.10.09.
Please advise as to who guided CMD for above conclusion.
4. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.11.5.10 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. Dr.Dilip R. Pangavhane, Appellate Authority replied on 16.6.10 upholding the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.31.7.10 before CIC.
Decision
5. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the complaint was forwarded to them by CVC through MHRD and that the investigation was over and the case has been referred back to CVC through MHRD for further action. He also added that the CVC is the custodian of information sought .
Hence information can be provided by PIO, CVC.
6. The Commission after hearing the submissions by both sides accordingly adjourns the hearing to 21.1.11 at 10.30 a.m. to beheld in the chamber of the Commissioner in Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067 to give a chance to the PIO, CVC to be heard.
7. The Commission directs the PIO, CVC to carry with him all the relevant documents including the investigation reports related to both the captioned cases for the hearing
8. The hearing is adjourned.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Rajesh Gouhari H.No.A1/107 Janakpuri New Delhi 110 058
2. Shri M.L. Gouhari H.No.A1/107 Janakpuri New Delhi 110 058
3. The Public Information Officer EdCIL (India) Limited Ed. CIL House 18A, Sector 16A Noida 201 301
4. The Appellate Authority EdCIL (India) Limited Ed. CIL House 18A, Sector 16A Noida 201 301
5. The PIO (along with copies of appeals in both cases) Central Vigilance Commission Satarkta Bhawan Block A GPO Complex INA New Delhi
6. Officer Incharge, NIC