Central Information Commission
Mrkumar Pankaj Anand vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 10 November, 2015
INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA
Kumar Pankaj Anand, Ranchi Vs. CPIO, University Grants Commission, New Delhi
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI/PIO:14.12.13/ FA/FAO: / Second appeal: 06.03.14
Appeal closed. Hearing: 24.07.2015 Decision: 10112015
Parties Present:
The appellant is not present and he is being represented by Shri Manoj Kumar, Advocate
of Jharkhand High Court. The Public Authority is represented by CPIO, Smt. Sushma Rathore,
Under Secretary and Shri Het Ram, UDC, University Grants Commission, MHRD, Higher
Education, New Delhi.
Facts:
1. Appellant by his RTI application had sought for copy of the notings and enclosures of file in which action has been taken by CU wing of MHRD on his complaint against Prof D T Khathing, the then Vicechancellor, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi. File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 1
2. Claiming no information, appellant filed first appeal and also second appeal before the Commission.
Proceedings before the Commission:
3. Representative of the appellant stated that none of the RTI applications filed by the appellant has been replied by the respondent authority within the prescribed period. Respondent Officer submitted that the appellant had filed number of repetitive RTI applications on the same subject and that they were replied within the prescribed time. He has also submitted a table of 121 RTI applications/appeals filed by the appellant, which are reproduced as follows :
Details of RTI applications/ appeal filed by Mr. Kumar Pankaj Anand and the information provided by UGC vide letter No.F.745(2)/2012(CU) against these RTI applications / appeals Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject No. dated 1 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/124 13.12.2013 745/2012(CU) Noting & enclosure and action . taken by CU wing of MHRD on the 10.1.2014 complaint dated 28.10.2013 against 22 VC, CUJ (letter No.80) 2 DOHED/R/2013/62242 14.12.2013 .
3 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/125 & 13.12.2013 745/2012(CU) Noting & enclosure and action
. taken by CU wing of MHRD on the
5 & 18 10.1.2014
complaint dated 28.10.2013 against 4 DOHED/R/2013/62243 14.12.2013 22 VC, CUJ (letter No.79) File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 2 Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject No. dated 5 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/126 & 13.12.2013 745/2012(CU) Noting & enclosure and action . taken by CU wing of MHRD on the 14 10.1.2014 complaint dated 28.10.2013 against 22 VC, CUJ (letter No.78) 6 DOHED/R/2013/62244 14.12.2013 .
21
7 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/127 & 13.12.2013 745/2012(CU) Noting & enclosure and action
. taken by CU wing of MHRD on the
8 & 20 10.1.2014
complaint dated 28.10.2013 against 22 VC, CUJ (letter No.77) 8 DOHED/R/2013/62245 14.12.2013 .
9 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/226 30.1.2014 .40
1 DOHED/R/2014/61086 0 .
1 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/128 & 13.12.2013 745/2012(CU) Noting & enclosure and action
1 taken by CU wing of MHRD on the
11 & 19 10.1.2014
. complaint dated 28.10.2013 against
22 VC, CUJ (letter No.71)
1 DOHED/R/2013/62246 14.12.2013
2
.
1 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/228 30.01.2014
3
43
.
1 DOHED/R/2014/61089
4
.
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 3
Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject
No. dated
1 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/2013 17.01.2014 (141,142,143,
5 2014/141 144,145,146, 147)
59
.
745(2)/2012
1 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/243 14.02.2014 (CU)
6
66101 Dt. 18.3.2014
.
289291
1 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/2013 17.01.2014
7 2014/142
60
. (243,244,245,
246, 247)
1 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/244 14.02.2014
8 745(2)/2012
143157
. (CU)
dt.18.03.2014
1 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/2013 17.01.2014
9 2014/143 292295
61
.
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/245 14.02.2014
0
103113
.
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/2013 17.01.2014 (141,142,143,
1 2014/144 144,145,146, 147)
62
.
745(2)/2012
(CU)
Dt. 18.3.2014
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/246 14.02.2014
2 289291
115141
.
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/UGC/2013 11.03.2014
(243,244,245,
3 2014/276
444468 246, 247)
.
745(2)/2012
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/2013 17.01.2014 (CU)
4 2014/145 dt.18.03.2014
.
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 4
Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject
No. dated
63 292295
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/247 14.02.2014
5
153181
.
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/2013 17.01.2014
6 2014/146
64
.
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/2013 17.01.2014
7 2014/147
65
.
2 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/248 18.2.2014 18.03.2014
8
183288 296
.
2 SA/UG/14/19411j7t 23.02.2014 Not pertains to
9 UGC forwarded
298302
. to MHRD
3 SA/UG/14/19273n39 23.02.2014 On 01.04.2014
0
303307 p.372/cor.
.
3 SA/UG/14/1928ru7m 23.02.2014
1
308312
.
3 SA/UG/14/1930pfct 23.02.2014
2
318323
.
3 SA/UG/14/1931kggc 23.02.2014
3
323327
.
3 SA/UG/14/1932jw1t 23.02.2014
4
328332
.
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 5
Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject
No. dated
3 SA/UG/14/1933wske 23.02.2014
5
333337
.
3 SA/UG/14/1942rij 23.02.2014
6
338342
.
3 SA/UG/14/193513gw 23.02.2014
7
343347
.
3 SA/UG/14/1936j428 23.02.2014
8
348352
.
3 SA/UG/14/1937zst5 23.02.2014
9
353357
.
4 SA/UG/14/1938cdel 23.02.2014
0
358362
.
4 SA/UG/14/1939f6ev 23.02.2014
1
363366
.
4 SA/UG/14/19402f8n 23.02.2014
2
367371
.
4 Appeal (email) against 220 03.03.2014
3
374
.
4 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/230 30.01.2014 745/2012 Noting & enclosure and action
4 taken by CU wing of MHRD on the
DOHED/R/2014/61089 46 25.02.2014
. complaint dated 28.10.2013 against
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 6
Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject
No. dated
224225 VC, CUJ (letter No.58)
KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/215 28.01.2014 Email 23.10.2013
205
4 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/216 28.01.2014 745/2012 Noting & enclosure and action
5 taken by CU wing of MHRD on the
202 25.02.2014
. complaint dated 26.10.2013 against
224225 VC, CUJ (letter No.57)
4 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/217 28.01.2014 BC Minutes (1 to 15 meeting)
6
212
.
4 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/218 28.01.2014 FC Minutes (1 to 8 meeting)
7
210
.
4 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/219 28.01.2014 EC Minutes (1 to 15 meeting)
8
216
.
4 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/220 28.01.2014 DPR (PC)
9
214
.
5 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/221 28.01.2014 DPR (TC)
0
208
.
5 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/222 28.01.2014 745/2012 RTI FEE
1
200 25.2.2014
.
221
5 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/224 30.01.2014 Noting & enclosure and action
2 taken against email dated 3.1.2014
DOHED/R/2014/61107 48
.
5 Appeal (email) against 220 03.03.2014 11.4.2014
3
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 7
Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject
No. dated
374 376/c
5 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/UGC/252 05.03.2014 745(2)/2012
4
RTI fee against of Rs.750/ 380 11.4.2014
.
217,218,219,217,220
558
5 Appeal against RTI 05.03.2014 745(2)/2012
5 DOHED/R/61085 dated
383468 11.4.2014
. 30.1.2014 (letter 77)
559560
5 Appeal against RTI 5.3.2014
6 DOHED/R/61090 dated
409442
. 30.1.2014 (letter 80)
5 APPEAL (DOHED/R/61093 11.03.2014
7 DT.30.1.2014) (letter 57)
470482
.
5 KPA/CUJ/RTI/CPIO/201314/278 11.03.2014 745(2)/2012
8
APPEAL (DOHED/R/61091 484500 11.4.2014
.
DT.30.1.2014) (letter 58)
559560
5 APPEAL (DOHED/R/61089 05.03.2014
9 DT.30.1.2014) (letter 71)
502548
.
6 APPEAL (DOHED/R/61084 05.03.2014
0 DT.30.1.2014) (letter 71)
550537
.
6 Through email 29.4.2014 745(2)/2012 Construction work in Brambe
1 Campus
564658 29.5.2014
.
659
6 Appeal 6.2.2014 1.7.2014
2
617620 621
.
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 8
Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject
No. dated
4.7.2014
622634
6 DOHED/R/2014/61395 26.6.2014 25.7.2014 Regarding Fact Finding Report
3 (645/c.)
.
6 Through email on 25.7.2014 6.8.2014 (663/c.) Sanction letter Jan. 2014 to July,
4 2014 (RTI FEE 130/)
2.9.2014 (667/c.)
.
6 UGCOM/R/2014/60221/1 14.10.2014 21.10.2014 (rti Sanction letter March, 2009 to 31
5 fee) (p757/c.) Dec. 2013
.
14.11.2014
(p.765/c.)
6 UGCOM/R/2014/60220/1 14.10.2014 21.10.2014 Sanction letter July 2014 to Till date
6 (p.756/c.) (14.10.2014)
.
6 UGCOM/R/2014/60219 14.10.2014 asked Rs.830/ University reply against point no. 2
7 for RTI fee of UGC letter dated 12.8.2014
.
21.10.2014
6 UGCOM/R/2014/60218 14.10.2014 (754757/C.) University reply against point no. 1
8 of UGC letter dated 12.8.2014
. 14.11.2014
(p.765/c.)
6 UGCOM/R/2014/60215 14.10.2014 Revised DPR submitted by the CUJ
9
.
7 UGCOM/R/2014/60771 19.11.2014 28.11.2014 rti fee Action on MHRD letter dated
0 6.8.2014
(p.798/c.)
.
11.12.2014
(807/c.)
7 UGCOM/R/2014/60849 22.11.2014 3.12.2014 rti fee Details of letter No.F.463/2009(CU)
1 (p801) dated 24.12.2012
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 9
Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject
No. dated
18.12.2014
(883/c.
7 UGCOM/R/2014/61121 08.12.2014 18.12.2014 UGC letter 7411/2014 (CU) dated
2 (p896/c.) 27.10.2014
.
7 UGCOM/R/2014/61391 30.12.2014 16.1.2015 Details of letter No.F.463/2009(CU)
3 (p898/c.) dated 24.12.2012
.
7 UGCOM/R/2015/60072 7.1.2015 19.1.2015 Sanction letter from 10.10.2014 to till
4 date (7.1.2015)
(p.914/c.)
.
7 UGCOM/R/2015/60073 7.1.2015 19.1.2015 Sanction letter July 2014 to Till date
5 (07.1.2015)
(p.914/c.)
.
7 UGCOM/R/2015/60070 6.1.2015 19.1.2015 UGC letter 7411/2014 (CU) dated
6 27.10.2014
(p.914/c.)
.
7 UGCOM/R/2015/60175 12.1.2015 5.2.2015 Details of letter No.F.463/2009(CU)
7 (p.919/c.) dated 24.12.2012
.
3.3.2015
(p.941/c.)
7 UGCOM/R/2014/60180 11.10.2014 13.2.2015 Revised DPR submitted by the CUJ
8
(p.921/c.)
.
7 UGCOM/R/2015/60492 9.2.2015 16.2.2015 Despite laps of more than 30 days,
9 CPIO did not provide the
(p.931.933/c.)
. information
8 UGCOM/R/2015/60493 9.2.2015 16.2.2015 Despite laps of more than 30 days,
0 CPIO did not provide the
(p.931.933/c.)
. information
8 UGCOM/R/2015/60485 8.2.2015 16.2.2015 Sanction letter 01.12.2014 to Till
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 10
Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject
No. dated
(p.931.933/c.) date (08.02.2015) 3.3.2015 (p.941/c.) 8 UGCOM/R/2015/60490 8.2.2015 16.2.2015 Sanction letter Jan. 2014 to Till date 2 (08.02.2015) (p.931.933/c.) .
3.3.2015 (p.941/c.) 8 UGCOM/R/2015/60489 8.2.2015 16.2.2015 UGC letter 7411/2014 (CU) dated 3 27.10.2014 (p.931.933/c.) .
8 UGCOM/R/2015/60488 8.2.2015 16.2.2015 UGC letter 7411/2014 (CU) dated
4 27.10.2014 (p.931.933/c.) .
8 DOHED /R/2014/65028 19.11.2014 16.2.2015 All correspondence reg. release of 5 grant to CUJ (p.931.933/c.) .
8 UGCOM/R/2015/80116 10.2.2015 20.2.2015 Sanction letter Jan. 2013/2014 to Till 6 date (10.02.2015) (p.935/c.) .
3.3.2015 (p.941/c.) 8 UGCOM/R/2015/60696 24.2.2015 3.3.2015 Reg. Report of the Fact Finding 7 (p.971/c.) Report .
8 DOHED /R/2015/60078 8.1.2015 12.3.2015 Sanction letter Jan. 2012 to Till date 8 (p.976/c.) (8.1.2015) .
30.3.2015 1028/c.
8 UGCOM/R/2015/60840 3.3.2015 12.3.2015 Noting & enclosure and action 9 (p.1004/c.) taken by CU wing of MHRD on the . forwarded to complaint dated 28.10.2013 against File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 11 Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject No. dated MHRD VC, CUJ (letter No.80) 9 UGCOM/R/2015/60841 3.3.2015 12.3.2015 Noting & enclosure and action 0 (p.1004/c.) taken by CU wing of MHRD on the . forwarded to complaint dated 28.10.2013 against MHRD VC, CUJ (letter No.79) 9 UGCOM/R/2015/60842 3.3.2015 12.3.2015 Noting & enclosure and action 1 (p.1004/c.) taken by CU wing of MHRD on the . forwarded to complaint dated 28.10.2013 against MHRD VC, CUJ (letter No.77) 9 UGCOM/R/2015/60843 3.3.2015 12.3.2015 Noting & enclosure and action 2 (p.1004/c.) taken by CU wing of MHRD on the . forwarded to complaint dated 28.10.2013 against MHRD VC, CUJ (letter No.71) 9 UGCOM/R/2015/60844 3.3.2015 12.3.2015 Noting & enclosure and action 3 (p.1004/c.) taken by CU wing of MHRD on the . forwarded to complaint dated 28.10.2013 against MHRD VC, CUJ 9 UGCOM/R/2015/60847 3.3.2015 12.3.2015 Action taken on the complaints 4 (p.1015/c.) against CUJ . 9 UGCOM/R/2015/60838 3.3.2015 12.3.2015 Action taken on the complaints 5 (p.1015/c.) against CUJ (letter no.58) . 9 UGCOM/R/2015/60839 3.3.2015 12.3.2015 Action taken on the complaints 6 (p.1019/c.) dated 15.5.2013 against CUJ . 9 UGCOM/R/2015/80220 11.3.2015 30.3.2015 Reg. Report of the Fact Finding 7 Report (1065/c.) . 9 DOHED /R/2015/60482 19.2.2015 8.4.2015 Reg. Report of the Fact Finding 8 Report (1082/c.) . File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 12 Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject No. dated Forwarded to MHRD 9 UGCOM/R/2015/60978 13.3.2015 8.4.2015 UGC letter 7411/2014 (CU) dated 9 27.10.2014 (10801081/c.) . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/60980 13.3.2015 8.4.2015 Sanction letter Jan. 2015 to Till date 0 (13.03.2015) (10801081/c.) 0 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/61198 26.3.2015 8.4.2015 A copy of the all complaints 0 regarding construction work (10801081/c.) 1 . 1 Appeal through email 24.3.2015 28.4.2015 Report of Fact Finding Committee 0 KPA/RTI/FAA/UGC/201516/227 (P.11581160/C.) 2 . 1 DOHED /R/2015/60525 24.2.2015 17.4.2015 Report of Fact Finding Committee 0 (p.1167/c.) 3 . 1 KPA/RTI/FAA/UGC/20152016/ 8.4.2015 6.5.2015 Report of Fact Finding Committee 0 245 (p.1212/c.) 4 . 1 KPA/RTI/FAA/UGC/20152016/ 8.4.2015 6.5.2015 Report of Fact Finding Committee 0 250 (p.1209/c 5 . 1 UGCOM/A/2015/60383 27.4.2015 6.5.2015 Regarding complaints 0 (p.1210/c 6 . File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 13 Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject No. dated 1 UGCOM/A/2015/60384 27.4.2015 6.5.2015 Regarding complaints 0 (p.1210/c 7 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/61446 13.4.2015 6.5.2015 Noting and details of the two 0 (p.1222/c.) member committee 8 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/61376 8.4.2015 6.5.2015 Copy of the correspondence made 0 (p.1219/c.) between UGC to MHRD for release 9 of grantinaid to CUJ . 1 DOHED/R/2015/60619 4.3.2015 15.5.2015 Report of Fact Finding Committee 1 (p.1229/c.) 0 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/61716 30.4.2015 26.5.2015 Copy of the Agenda of the Finance 1 Committee of CUJ held on (p.1235/c.) 1 20.4.2015 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/61665 26.4.2015 26.5.2015 UGC letter 7411/2014 (CU) dated 1 27.10.2014 (p.1236/c.) 2 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/61666 26.4.2015 26.5.2015 Sanction letter Jan. 2015 to Till date 1 (26.04.2015) (p.1237/c.) 3 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/80431 7.5.2015 26.5.2015 Noting and details of the two 1 member committee (p.1238/c.) 4 . File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 14 Sl. No. of RTI Application date UGC reply and Subject No. dated 1 KPA/RTI/MHRD/20142015298 11.5.2015 8.6.2015 Noting and details of the two 1 member committee (P1242/C.) 5 UGCOM/R/2015/61446 . 1 UGCOM/A/2015/60480 26.5.2015 25.6.2015 UGC letter 7411/2014 (CU) dated 1 27.10.2014 UGCOM/R/2015/61665 (p1259/C.) 6 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/61875 13.5.2015 30.6.2015 Noting and details of the two 1 member committee (p1261/C.) 7 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/60689 29.6.2015 14.7.2015 Sanction letter Jan. 2015 to Till date 1 (29.06.2015) (p.1275/C.) 8 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/62804 04.07.2015 29.7.2015 Action on the report of the two 1 member committee (p.1282/C.) 9 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/62805 04.07.2015 29.7.2015 Reg. CBI letter relating to the 2 release /stop the grant to the CUJ (p.1283/C.) 0 . 1 UGCOM/R/2015/62796 04.07.2015 29.7.2015 Copy of the report of the two 2 member committee (p.1284/C.) 1 . Commissions Observation: File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 15
4. The Commission notes that all the RTI applications filed by the appellant are about action taken against Prof D T Khathing, the then Vice Chancellor of Central University of Jharkhand. Respondent Officer submitted that the CBI is already enquiring into the allegation with regard to Prof K T Khathing and the information sought by the appellant are related to them. He stated that Shri Harish Mohan, Shri Kumar Pankaj Anand and Shri Sandeep Kumar were removed from the services of the University by the Second Executive Council of CUJ vide its Resolution dated 14.9.2013. Ms. Meenakshi Chaurasia is the wife of Shri Kumar Pankaj Anand. This group of terminated employees of CUJ along with Ms. Meenakshi Chaurasia, and led by Shri Manoj Kumar, Advocate of Ranchi High Court, is working against the University by making complaints to various authorities. All these people's wants to declare the constitution of 2nd Executive Council as illegal and all the meetings and resolutions as null and void so that the decision to terminate the services of these persons taken by the 2nd Executive Council can get revoked. So far these five persons have filed 431 RTI Applications (on line) and 389 Appeals (on line) under RTI Act, as under: SI. No. Name of Applicant Application Appeals 1 Sh. Manoj Kumar 51 59 2 Sh. Harish Mohan 50 27 3 Sh. Sandeep Kumar 19 23 4 Mrs. Meenakshi Chaurasia 175 168 5 Sh. Kumar Pankaj Anand 136 112 Total 431 389 File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 16
5. All these applications are relating to Central University Jharkhand (CUJ) seeking Information on alleged corruption in the CUJ, Constitution of Second Executive Council (EC) of the CUJ, amendment to the statute relating to EC, Fund release to the CUJ etc. These persons used to send representations on the above mentioned issues to the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Secretaries etc. and thereafter, file RTI applications to know the status of the representations received in this department from the authorities mentioned above by seeking certified true copy of notings and correspondence of the concerned file. They used unparliamentarily language against all the officials of MHRD in these representations. Since CBI is already conducting inquiry on the corruption charges, the representations on this issue were not processed in the Department. Accordingly, reply was sent to the applicants on this issue. On the other issues, number of the representations was too high. Information available with them were furnished to the applicants wherever possible. Presently, no RTI application is pending with the department. While filing Appeals, they attacked the CPIO personally by using foul language
6. The reasons for terminating the services of Shri Kumar Pankaj Anand, Shri Harish Mohan and Shri Sandeep Kumar, as furnished by CUJ are reproduced below :
" ... The Council objectively considered on all the relevant aspects and felt that while carrying out exercise to reach any conclusive finding of guilt on the allegations of improper conduct by one or other of these employees may not be undertaken, yet it was felt that to continue with such probationers may not be safe for the university and may not be conductive to the overall academic and/or administrative atmosphere of the University. The Council further realized that the working, conduct and performance of these employees were not satisfactory and not upto the mark and File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 17 that they were not suitable to continue in their services. The Council decided to discharge these probationers simply instead of taking a regular departmental proceeding, as any adverse decision therein may jeopardize their prospects of employment elsewhere in different walks of life too. Thus balancing between compassion on one hand and protecting the interest of the University on the other, the council decided to simply discharge these employees from the services of the University and authorized the ViceChancellor to cause issuance of termination letters to the employees Viz :
1. Mr Harish Mohan, Dy Registrar.
2. Mr Kumar Pankaj Anand, Executive Engineer.
3. Dr I.C Bidyasagar, Medical Officer.
4. Mr Sandeep Kumar, Section Officer"
7. The representative of the appellant states that he was removed by the University along with Mr. Harish Mohan and 2 others. Appellant says that he has filed multiple RTI applications between 20132015 and also stated that the information sought by him is not related to CBI and its administrative matter and under CCS rules, ministry has to take action. He also stated that the fact of his dismissal is false as their service were terminated.
8. Appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to advance public interest, it cannot be used as a tool to harass the public authority by a disgruntled employee, who's multiple RTI applications against a single person/authority is impacting the functioning of public authority like UGC/MHRD and the Central Information Commission in Second Appeal. Officers also presented a bundle of files of the appellant. It reflects criminal wastage of time and if unchecked will chock the functioning of the public authority. If this is allowed, File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 18 the public authority cannot focus on their regular duties and their whole time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/Useless/ repeated/Multiple/Obnoxious RTI questions.
9. Commission advices the appellant not to resort to misuse of the public welfare legislation and from the attitude of the person representing appellant, commission notices they will not take advice. He also has threatened the commission that he will approach the High Court, as the information in the form requested by him has not been furnished. Approaching the higher authority is the legal right of the appellant, but by his threatening, he cannot dictate the commission that the information as required by him will be furnished. The Commission is a quasijudicial authority which has to look into the merit of the case while deciding second appeal and the exemption as enumerated in the RTI Act.
10. In relation to the multiple/indiscriminate filing of RTI application, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shail Saini Vs. Sanjeev Kumar [W.P (c) No. 845/2014] had observed as follows:
5. In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still. The Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, MANU/SC/0932/2011 : (2011) 8 SCC 497, has held as under:
62. When trying to ensure that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of the Governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualise and enumerate all File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 19 types of information which require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. The legislature has however made an attempt to do so. The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act, that is, Section 8 of the Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The courts and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of the RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, involving a reasonable and balanced approach which harmonises the two objects of the Act, while interpreting Section 8 and the other provisions of the Act.
67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the nonproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising "information furnishing", at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
6. After all disproportionate diversion of limited resources to Directorate General, Defence Estates' office would also take its toll on the Ministry of Defence. The Supreme Court in ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya, MANU/SC/1006/2011 : (2011) 8 SCC 781 has held as under: File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 20
39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.
Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen
11. Filing of multiple RTI on the same subject by the present applicant creates fear among the public authority, who are tormented by such disgruntled employees who keep on filing such RTI applications again and again, thereby taking away their office hours and their precious manpower resource apart from the mental agony subjected by them inspite of performing their duty as per the provisions of RTI Act. It is in public interest that the enquiry in the matter should go on, so that a final conclusion is arrived at which will beneficial the public and the accused person also. Commission would not tolerate such atrocities through RTI, commission hopes that the public authority will rise to the occasion and take necessary steps in consultation with their legal officers against such kind of File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 21 misuses of RTI Act. As observed by the Hon'ble High Court " A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
12. The respondent officers made fervent appeal to the Commission that they were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles; and about individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance. The Commission found that the applicant was one of the four disgruntled employees against whom action was taken or their claims were denied.
13. The Commission noticed that three or four former employees in every public authority, who were either suspended or removed or facing charges, convicted in a crime or facing disciplinary action, or trying to run a counter inquiry with several harassing questions. The Commission also noted an atmosphere of fear and worry was spread in the offices and among the officers who are hesitating to take action against erring staff members for fear of facing flood of questions under RTI. Sometimes, the RTI applications are running into hundreds similar to those posed by lawyers during cross examination. It is almost a parallel enquiry against the authorities whose decision or disciplinary action might have adversely affected them. The respondents submitted that they were ready to comply with the RTI Act but answering 'enquiry' type questions and repeated RTI applications would involve diversion of resources, energy besides having demoralizing effect. The Commission appreciates the genuineness of the problem and sincere feelings of the respondent officers and finds a need to address this serious issue. It is the responsibility of Government of India and Information Commissions to see that the RTI Act will not become rendezvous for disgruntled elements. The Commission records the admonition against the misuse by appellant and his group of individuals who filed multiple, File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 22 repeated and vexatious RTI applications and appeals causing serious wastage of time, energy and resources of public authorities.
14. The Commission in the case of Mukesh Sharma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [CIC/SA/A/2014/000615], had observed as follows :
"Every employee has rights to secure his employment but also has duties to perform the job without resorting to misconduct or any other irregularity. The employee also has right to get the copy of complaint, notice, charge sheet and every piece of paper which is relied on against him. He should get the opportunity also to defend himself. At the end he should also get the copy of enquiry report/order/judgment or sentence pronounced along with right of appeal. He has all rights as per principles of natural justice and if there is any lapse, or suppression of information or document or nonsupply of papers relied on by the disciplinary authority, he can seek them from the inquiry officer or authority, if not, he can get them under RTI Act, Though an employee facing disciplinary charges as explained above the accused employee does not have any moral or legal right to file plethora of RTI applications seeking information not related to allegation against him, but to harass the officers who he suspect to have complained or gave evidence or provided information or taken action against him, if done so it becomes misuse and that cannot be encouraged. The public interest is an overriding factor in these cases also as per the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. If such multiple RTI actions are allowed the officers at higher level will lose moral authority to initiate action against erring employees and whole system system of disciplined administration would crumble. In contra, there is a huge public interest in taking action against the wrongdoing employees. Here in this case, the appellant is not even trying to protect his personal right, or right to employment or right to fair trial. But he is unleashing his private vengeance against colleagues or seniors who are either inquiring or informing or complaining or giving evidence against him. Such information would squarely fall under exempted category as per Section 8(h) ('information which would impede process of investigation or prosecution File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 23 of offenders') of RTI Act, 2005 as this would not only impede the investigation or inquiry against him, but also impede the inquiries against all such erring employees who will be immorally encouraged or tempted to use RTI for this private, illegal and vengeful purpose. The RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended employees or those erring personnel facing inquiries to serve their personal interests in protecting their misconduct or preventing the authorities from proceeding with penal proceedings enquiring into misconduct. The RTI is not for these disgruntled employees facing disciplinary proceedings or selfish persons but for the people in general, only in public interest, and never for the private vengeance at all.
If this kind of misuse is not checked, and officers will be threatened, demoralized and prevented from proceeding against employees facing charges misconduct. None would complain/inform/give evidence or no authority would gather courage to initiate enquiry against erring employees even if law authorizes them, prescribes it as a duty and situation demands. Such a situation will lead to chaos in administration. In order to check the misuse of RTI for running a parallel or counter enquiry against inquiring officers, this application deserves to be rejected and the appellant, admonished. "
15. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of K K Sharma Vs. State of Haryana [W.P (C) No. 4930 of 2011 ]in relation to disgruntled employees had observed as follows :
"Clearly, the provisions of the RTI Act would not be available to a disgruntled employee seeking information as regards public officials which is otherwise personal in nature on account of furtherance of a personal vendetta."
Decision:
16. The Commission notes that 99 % of the RTI questions is regarding the documents which are under investigation by CBI on allegations made by the group of disgruntled File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 24 elements. As the information sought by the appellant pertains to files which are under the investigation by CBI, the University took the plea of Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds merits in the plea of respondent authority. In relation to information which did not pertain to the file taken by CBI, the respondent authority had submitted that they had provided the information sought by the appellant as available with them.
17. Respondent authority had also claimed that the second appeal copy was not provided to them, for which the appellant states that it was forwarded to them in the Google drive format. CPIO stated that it was inaccessible and requested that a hard copy of the same be furnished to them.
18. Having heard the submission and perused the record, the Commission directs the respondent authority to examine whether any information requested was let out, whether disclosure of which will impede the investigation by CBI and then give information which is not under the enquiry of CBI, the same be furnished within 15 days of receipt of the same.
19. With these observations, the present appeal is closed.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (U. C. Joshi) Deputy Secretary File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 25 Address of the parties :
1. The PIO under RTI Act, Smt. Sushma Rathore, Under Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Kumar Pankaj Anand, Flat No.04, Shri Krishna Enclave, Shri Krishna Lane, Opp. Divyayan, Morabadi, Ranchi834004.
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/900600SA Page 26