Central Information Commission
Vipin Chaudhary vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 1 February, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ADJUNCT DECISION
File No : CIC/BHELD/A/2018/129748-ADJUNCT
Vipin Chaudhary ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. General Manager,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
BHEL Bhawan, Plot No. DJ-9/1, Sector-2,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700091. .... ितवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30/01/2023
Date of Adjunct Decision : 30/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed a RTI application dated 04.09.2017 seeking detailed Action Taken Report on his application dated 02.08.2017 and the amount due to him under SSW.
The PIO/Dy. General Manager, vide a letter dated 03.10.2017 informed the Appellant that the 'information sought is not available in Material Form'.1
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.10.2017. The FAA vide an order dated 30.11.2017 upheld the reply of the PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with a Second Appeal received on 10.05.2018.
The said Second Appeal was adjudicated upon by a coordinate bench on 07.02.2020.
The present Adjunct decision is being issued in furtherance of the following order issued on 07.02.2020 by the Commission:
"Upon perusal of records of the case, the Commission finds that the reply of the PIO is evasive and totally unacceptable. Furthermore, the Respondent has not even bothered to attend the hearing to put forth a proper explanation for such denial of information nor submitted adequate justification for their conduct. Such lapse on the part of the Respondent cannot be accepted and accordingly, reply of PIO and order of the FAA are set aside. Perusal of the submission sent by Sh. Manoj Lakra- CPIO, Respondent reveals that the PIO has proceeded on the incorrect presumption that information sought by the Appellant requires grievance redressal, whereas the Appellant has actually sought to know action taken on his representation for release of his dues. Since the Appellant is an ex- employee of the Respondent, even if a contractual employee, complete non- existence of information with the Respondent cannot be accepted.
In the given circumstances, the Registry of this Bench is hereby directed to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE to the PIO/Dy. General Manager, BHEL - Sh. Manoj Lakra for causing deliberate obstruction in the dissemination of information in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act and vitiating the hearing of the Second Appeal by his absence thereby demonstrating utter disregard of law. Reply to the SHOW CAUSE Notice must reach the Commission at least one week before the hearing of the case.
The PIO/ Dy. General Manager, BHEL - Sh. Manoj Lakra is further directed to supply a revised reply to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report to be submitted before the Commission, by 28.02.2020."2
Subsequently, a show-cause hearing was scheduled to be heard on 16.04.2020, however, the same could not be heard due to the onset of the pandemia and the lockdown phase that followed. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up for hearing by this bench vide a hearing notice issued on 10.01.2023.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Respondent: Amitabha Sengupta, AGM (HR) & FAA present through video conference.
The FAA at the outset brought the attention of the bench to his written statement dated 27.01.2023 submitted on behalf of the then CPIO, Manoj Lakra, stating as under:
"10.This is brought to the notice of Central Information Commission (CIC) that Shri Manoj Lakra, CPIO & DGM (HR) has submitted a written statement dated 03.02.2020 which was uploaded in the website of Central Information Commission (CIC) http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, but the said document was not taken into cognizance by Central Information Commission (CIC) and reference of the uploaded written statement was also not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2020. Subsequently, Show Cause Hearing Notice under section 20 of RTI Act, 2005 was issued to Shri Manoj Lakra, PIO & DGM (HR) and next date of hearing was fixed on 16.04.2020 at 13.00 PM in the Court of Hon'ble Information Commissioner.
11.Again a letter dated 04.03.2021 from Commission Central Information (CIC) was issued to BHEL which was received on 11.03.2021 wherein it was mentioned that Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2020 was issued and had directed to submit a reply to the commission latest by 03.04.2020 without considering the written statement of Shri Manoj Lakra, PIO & DGM (HR) submitted online throughhttp://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add on 03.02.2020 as stated in Para 10.
12.Show Cause Hearing Notice dated 10.01.2023 has been received under section 20 of RTI Act, 2005 issued to Shri Manoj Lakra, CPIO & DGM (HR) and the date of hearing has been fixed on 30.01.2023 at 01.10 PM before the Bench of Hon'ble Information Commissioner.
(a) The Commission may kindly appreciate that the reply of CPIO dated 03.10.2017 vide order no. PSER/HRM/RTI/130/201/11772 and reply of FAA vide 3 order dated 30.11.2017 of upholding the reply of PIO is in accordance with the provision of RTI, Act 2005. The decision of respondent CPIO to Shri. Vipin Chaudhary, Appellant is correct in all respect. Owing to pre-official engagements the Respondent could not attend the hearing dated 04.02.2020. The Show Cause Notice of hearing dated 16.04.2020 was not attended by Respondent due to Nation-wide Covid lockdown.
(b) It may please be noted that Shri. Vipin Chaudhary, Appellant was not an ex-employee (neither Permanent nor contractual) of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (A Govt of India Undertaking). He was a Contractual worker working under M/s. BAC Equipments Pvt. Ltd. at KBUNL, Muzaffarpur, Kanti (Bihar) project site. As BHEL does not directly engage any contract workers/labours at any site, hence is not liable to keep any records of any contractual worker engaged by various Contractors/Sub-Contrators of BHEL.
(c) It may also be noted that the responsibility of settlement of dues (if any) in respect of Shri Vipin Chaudhary solely lies with the M/s. BAC Equipments and BHEL has no role in settling the outstanding dues. In the event of non-settlement of dues (if any) by any contractor may be placed before the Labour department of the concerned jurisdiction.
(d)In the extant case of Shri Vipin Chaudhary, it has come to our notice that Shri Vipin Chaudhary has already approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna with his grievance of non-settlement of his dues under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna has disposed off his claim application on 19.03.2020 (Order copy attached for your kind perusal).
(e) In view of the above, the following points are being submitted to Commission Central Information (CIC) for kind consideration:
i. Shri Vipin Chaudhary is not an ex-employee of BHEL and rather was working under contractor M/s. BAC Equipments at KBUNL. ii. As there is no employee-employer relationship between BHEL and Shri Vipin Chaudhary, the FAA has upheld the reply of PIO. iii. The grievance has been already disposed off by The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna.
iv. No information is available with this Public Authority or it is not possible to create information for satisfaction of the Appellant."
In furtherance to the foregoing, upon a query from the Commission, the FAA explained that since no such communication of 02.08.2017 is found to have been received as per their records, the Appellant was informed that no information is 4 available in material form and the same was reiterated vide a letter dated 18.02.2020 in compliance with the directions contained in the order of 07.02.2020.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission having perused the written submissions of Manoj Lakra dated 03.02.2020; 18.03.2021 as well as the composite submissions tendered by the FAA at this stage finds that no malafides can be attributed to the intent of the CPIO in having provided the original reply of 03.10.2017.
However, it is irksome to note that the CPIO or the FAA appear to have not understood the import of the Commission's observations contained in the order of 07.02.2020, which is that the CPIO was required to inform the Appellant categorically regarding the receipt/non-receipt of the averred letter of 02.08.2017 and in case it was received, the information regarding the action taken thereon was required to be provided. On the contrary, the CPIO & FAA have far stretched their arguments to explain the entire grievance of the Appellant and have perhaps assumed that they are expected to redress the grievance under the RTI Act when infact the CPIO was merely mandated to inform the Appellant about the factum of the receipt/non-receipt of the letter of 02.08.2017 and in case of its receipt, the action taken on it.
In view of the foregoing, the CPIO & FAA are advised to understand the import of the order of 07.02.2020 and to ensure in future that the reply provided to the RTI Applications are cogent and specific to the information sought for therein instead of harping on the subject matter of the grievance to which the information sought for might concern.
With the above remarks, the show-cause proceedings are hereby dropped.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु&)
Information Commissioner (सू
5
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा(णत स)या*पत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
6