Central Information Commission
Arshad Ahmad vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 24 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/BSNLD/C/2023/654249
Shri Arshad Ahmad निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.12.2024
Date of Decision : 19.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.09.2023
PIO replied on : 20.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 20.10.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 08.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1) "Kindly provide all the relevant rules and circulars of BSNL applicable in case of resignation for joining other PSU after obtaining permission through proper channel in relation to payment of Leave encashment.
2) Does BSNL follows or endorse all CCS (Leave) rules 1972, or it only follows or endorse specific CCS (Leave) Rules?
3) Does BSNL specifically follows or endorse rule 39-D of CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 which is about Cash equivalent of leave salary in case of permanent absorption in Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central/State Government?"
The CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.10.2023 replied as under:-
"1 Copy of BSNL office Order No. 1-59/2009-PAT (BSNL) dated 04.01.2010 is enclosed.
2 & 3. Provisions of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 available in public domain, may be referred."Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 10.12.2024 has been received from the Respondent reiterating the PIO's reply and pointing out that the First Appeal was duly considered and disposed of vide order dated 01.01.2024 upholding the PIO's reply. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Manitombi Devi - CPIO/AGM was present during hearing. The Respondent reiterated the PIO's reply stating that information available on record has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act.
Decision Upon examining the facts of the case, it is noted that the queries raised by the Complainant had been appropriately responded by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, furnishing information from available official records, as permissible under the RTI Act. The Complainant has chosen not to buttress his case.
In view of the fact that the queries raised by the Complainant has been duly answered and the Complainant has chosen to file this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which is left for adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and averments of the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent has sent information available on records thereby negating any attempt at deliberate suppression of information. Considering the fact that the information furnished by the Respondent is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any legal infirmity, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information." In the given circumstances, in the absence of wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, the Commission finds no ground for Page 2 of 3 further action under Section 18 of the RTI Act in this case. The Respondent shall send a copy of the written submission dated 10.12.2024 with complete annexures to the Complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission within a week thereafter.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)