Central Information Commission
Gopinath R vs Barc Facilities, Kalpakkam on 3 June, 2021
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.
CIC/BARKP/A/2020/677771
CIC/BARKP/A/2020/679891
CIC/BARKP/A/2020/695737
CIC/BARKP/A/2020/680749
CIC/BARKP/A/2020/681067
CIC/BARKP/A/2020/686161
CIC/BARKP/C/2020/677592
CIC/BARKP/A/2020/688860
CIC/BARKP/C/2020/681860
Shri R. Gopinath
... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO/ ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Chief Administrative Officer,
Department of Atomic Energy, BARC Facilities
Kalpakkam - 603102
Date of Hearing : 03.06.2021
Date of Decision : 03.06.2021
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO Second
No. Appeal
677771 02.03.2020 23.03.2020 20.04.2020 21.05.2020 10.06.2020
679891 27.01.2020 28.02.2020 20.02.2020 17.04.2020 29.07.2020
695737 13.07.2020 28.09.2020 03.10.2020 06.11.2020 10.12.2020
680749 16.03.2020 16.04.2020 03.06.2020 - 05.08.2020
691067 17.04.2020 26.05.2020 18.05.2020 31.07.2020 08.08.2020
686161 28.05.2020 25.06.2020 18.07.2020 14.09.2020 19.09.2020
677592 28.05.2020 25.06.2020 - - 12.07.2020
688860 02.07.2020 10.08.2020 20.08.2020 06.10.2020 12.10.2020
681860 02.07.2020 14.08.2020 - - 15.08.2020
Page 1 of 6
Since the present batch of Second Appeals has been filed by the same Appellant,
the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
The Appellant was working as Plant Operator in BARC under M/s Ganesh
Engineering and has been removed from the job - The appellant sent a letter to
BARC authorities on 03.02.2020 for taking necessary action against the Contractor
who removed him from his job without any information and for not giving him
PF/ESI and other benefits for work done by him.
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/BARKP/A/2020/677771 The Appellant, a Plant Operator at BARC, Kalpakkam filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2020 and sought information on 06 points regarding his letter dated 03.02.2020 regarding action taken against M/s Ganesh Engineering Proprietor for removing him from the job; reason why petition number or reply was not given after 28 days from the date of the application, etc. The CPIO/Chief Administrative Officer vide letter dated 23.03.2020 informed the Appellant that information is not available with the public authority. He further informed the appellant and redressal of his grievance is not under the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 20.04.2020. The FAA vide order dated 21.05.2020 upheld the decision of the CPIO and observed that the Appellant seeks redressal of grievance against M/s Ganesh Electrical Contractor which is outside the scope of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/BARKP/A/2020/679891 (3) CIC/BARKP/A/2020/695737 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.01.2020 and 13.07.2020 and sought information regarding tender No. BARCF/INRPK/KARP/Mech/TR 215/2018; terms and conditions of the tender; eligibility criteria, requirement and instructions the contractor with regard to the tender, etc. The CPIO/CAO vide letter dated 28.02.2020 informed the Appellant that the information sought is voluminous and not in a collated form. The Appellant was advised to visit their office for inspection of records. In the meantime the Appellant filed a first appeal on 20.02.2020. The FAA vide order dated 17.04.2020 stated that the Appellant was engaged as a contract labour in one of the plants of the public authority and is holding permit valid upto 14.03.2020 issued by the department to enter plant site. Therefore, the Appellant could have very well approached the office of the CPIO to indicate a date mutually convenient in writing or orally so as to Page 2 of 6 arrange for inspection of documents sought. Instead of responding to the letter of the CPIO, the Appellant has filed a series of appeals which itself is a clear indication of diverting the resources of the public authority.
With regard to the RTI application dated 13.07.2020 also, the CPIO offered inspection of records to the Appellant vide reply dated 28.09.2020. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant filed a first appeal on 03.10.2020. The FAA vide order dated 06.11.2020 stated that on similar queries the Appellant was unresponsive and also turned down the offer of the CPIO, BARCF (K). Hence, it was stated that the application was submitted with an ulterior motive to divert the resources of the public authority.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the FAO, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant second appeal.
(4) CIC/BARKP/A/2020/680749 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2020 and sought information with regard to tender No. BARCF/KNRPC/Mech/Gen/2017/18-1108, details of the officer (name, designation, telephone numbers, email etc.) who evaluates the contractors; copies of documents of the wage register; Comparative statement on L1 and the work order issued; copies of documents pertaining to PF and ESI of the workers, insurance policy issued to the contract workers and related issues under 11 points.
The CPIO/CAO vide letter dated 16.04.2020 informed the appellant that his application has been forwarded to the custodian of the documents. The information will be supplied on receipt of the inputs from the custodian of information.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal 03.06.2020. In the meantime, CPIO vide letter dated 26.05.2020 informed the appellant that the documents were kept ready for inspection. However, the entry to DAE complex was restricted to visitors due to lockdown orders in force till 30.05.2020 hence the Appellant to indicate a mutually convenient date for inspection of documents once the lockdown was lifted. The FAA's order, if any is not on the Commission's record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied the appellant approached the Commission with the instant second appeal.
(5) CIC/BARKP/A/2020/681067 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.04.2020 and sought information on points with regard to tender No. BARCF/KNRPC/Mech/Gen/2017/18-1108, name of the bank to which his salary was paid, name of the bank branch, date of payment, copies al all the documents related to above mentioned tender, copy of Page 3 of 6 all records of all the workers, name and designation of officer who inspected the records etc. The CPIO vide letter dated 26th May, 2020 informed the Appellant that the documents were kept ready for inspection. However, the entry to DAE complex was restricted to visitors due to lockdown orders in force till 31.05.2020 hence the Appellant to indicate a mutually convenient date for inspection of documents once the lockdown was lifted.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal 18.05.2020. The FAA vide order dated 31.07.2020 observed that the Appellant was needlessly diverting the resources of the Public Authority that too during the lockdown period when the unit is functioning with bare minimum essential staff.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(6) CIC/BARKP/A/2020/686161 (7) CIC/BARKP/C/2020/677592 The Appellant/ Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.05.2020 seeking information on 11 points relating to his earlier application dated 03.02.2020; name/ designation/ email id and mobile number of the officer examining the application; manner in which complaints are examined, etc. The CPIO and Chief Administrative Officer, BARC, Kalapakkam vide letter dated 25.06.2020 provided a point wise response to the Appellant wherein for points 1,2,3,4 and 9 it was stated that the queries were speculative in nature and do not fall within the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. With regard to points 5 and 6 it was mentioned that contact details of all Heads of Units of IGCAR and BARCF are suo motu disclosed on the website mentioned in the reply. Regarding points 7, 8 and 10 it was mentioned that it is a grievance which is pending before the Labour Commission and redressal of grievance is outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the reply the Appellant/ Complainant approached the FAA on 18.07.2020. The FAA vide order dated 14.09.2020 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(8) CIC/BARKP/A/2020/688860 (9) CIC/BARKP/C/2020/681860 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2020 seeking information on 12 points relating to Tender No BARCF/INPRK/KARP/MECH/TR-215/2018; in Page 4 of 6 relation to the above tender the name of the bank to which is salary has been paid; date of payment; whether diwali bonus was given to him, etc. The CPIO and Chief Administrative Officer, BARC, Kalapakkam vide letter dated 10.08.2020 offered inspection of records to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA on 20.08.2020. The FAA vide order dated 06.10.2020 stated that on similar queries the Appellant was unresponsive and also turned down the offer of the CPIO, BARCF (K). Hence, it was stated that the application was submitted with an ulterior motive to divert the resources of the public authority.
Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant/ Complainant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging during the hearing A written submission has been received from the Appellant dated 16.05.2021 wherein he requested for hearing through video conference and to allow him to have a representative during the hearing since he has language issues. He also prayed for disclosure of information u/s 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and penalty against the erring officials for not providing him the information.
A written submission has been received from the Administrative Officer, BARC, Kalpakkam dated 16.05.2021 in Second Appeal No CIC/BARCK/A/2020/695737 wherein explaining the background of the matter it was stated that M/s Ganesh AC and Refrigeration Services had engaged the Appellant in the contract work awarded to the firm in one of the plants of BARC-K but later terminated the Appellant due to irregularity in Round the Clock shift operation of the plant. Since then the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI's which are clarificatory and hypothetical in nature. It was also stated that the Appellant a local resident and having a valid entry permit to enter the plant premises has no intention of getting the information and is rather venting his anger against his contractor. Though the information sought in some of the queries is voluminous the CPIO arranged to collect various documents containing scattered information with the intention of supplying the information after Appellant's inspection of various records. In addition it was stated that the Appellant who can write in English intentionally prepared application/ appeal in Tamil thus wasting the resources of the public authority.
The Appellant, along with his representative Shri Tamim Ansari, participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Ansari stated that the documents requested in the RTI application were not provided by the Respondent, till date.
The Respondent represented by Smt Konar Padma, AO-III participated in the hearing through audio conference. At the outset she referred to their written submissions and stated that they were willing to offer inspection of all the documents to the Appellant on the date and time, if any, fixed by the Commission. The Appellant/ his representative accepted the offer to inspect the documents.
Page 5 of 6Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs Smt Konar Padma, AO-III to facilitate inspection of documents admissible for disclosure under the RTI Act to the Appellant on any working day between 19.07.2021 and 23.07.2021, as per mutual convenience. A copy of the compliance report should reach the Commission within 7 days from the date of compliance of the order. As regards the grievance of the Appellant pertaining to M/s Ganesh Engineering, the Commission is of the view that the same is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of this Commission and the Appellant should approach an appropriate forum for redressal of the same.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6