Central Information Commission
K Chandrasekaran vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 8 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630040
K Chandrasekaran .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO under RTI,
Manager & CPIO, Bharat Heavy
Electrical Ltd., Corporate Office--
BHEL House, Siri Fort Institutional
Area, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110049. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.12.2025
Date of Decision : 08.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 27.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 23.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630040 Page 1 of 6
1. Please provide a Copy of Memorandum submitted to the BHEL Board of Directors on BHEL Pension Scheme.
2. Copy of the Draft BHEL Pension Scheme as submitted to the Board of Directors.
3. If DPE guidelines on the subject of Pension to BHEL Retirees was placed before the Board, a Copy of the same may be furnished.
4. Copy of the BHEL Pension Scheme, as approved by the BHEL Board of Directors, with enclosures.
5. Copy of the BHEL Pension Scheme sent to Department of Heavy Industries for its approval, with the covering letter.
6. Approval of DHI for the BHEL Pension Scheme, with enclosures.
7. Copy of the Note / Proposal put up to the Competent Authority for approval, and Copy of approval for the Scheme, including the time table, as contained in Circular dated 07/06/2012.
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.03.2024 stating as under:
Reply to Query (1-2, 4-7): The desired information is intellectual property and hence cannot be given as per clause 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. 8(1)(d):
information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Reply to Query 3: DPE website may please be referred for requested DPE guidelines.
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.05.2024, held as under:
" The appeal raised by the RTI applicant has been reviewed by concerned department and no change is envisaged in the initial reply."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. Written submission dated 05.12.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630040 Page 2 of 6
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Lata Rani, Sr. Manager, CSR/CPIO, BHEL, New Delhi, Shri C.B. Singh, Addl. Engineer, Nodal Officer, BHEL, New Delhi, Ms. Priyanka Singhal, Executive (HR), BHEL, New Delhi, Ms. Nithya, Manager, HR, BHEL, Trichy- participated in the hearing.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 15.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the Appellant has sought information related to pension scheme and draft submitted in reference to the same to the board, BHEL. They submitted that a copy of the pension scheme as approved has already been furnished to the Appellant. A written submission dated 26.11.2025 has been received from Ms. Lata Rani, CPIO, BHEL, New Delhi and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Written Submission of CPIO, BHEL Corporate Office/Respondent It is most Respectfully submitted that:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking copy of memorandum submitted to BHEL, Board of Directors on BHEL Pension Scheme, copy of draft BHEL Pension scheme as submitted to Board of Directors, a copy if DPE guidelines on the subject of Pension to BHEL retirees was places before the Board, copy of BHEL Pension scheme, as approved by BHEL Board of Directors with enclosures, copy of BHEL Pension Scheme sent to Department of Heavy Industries for its approval, BHEL Pension scheme approved by DHI and copy of note put up to the competent authority and copy of approval for the scheme. That Appellant submitted many RTI applications, one after another, regarding his Pension query, Promotion and dues:
1. BHELD/R/E/24/00034 :09.02.2024: Regarding his promotion to CPIO, BHEL, Trichy
2. BHELD/R/E/24/00050: 19.02.2024: Regarding Pension to CPIO, BHEL, Trichy File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630040 Page 3 of 6
3. BHELD/R/E/24/00051: 19.02.2024: Regarding Pension to CPIO, BHEL, Trichy
4. BHELD/R/E/24/00065: 28.02.2024: Regarding Pension to CPIO, BHEL, Corporate Office 5. BHELD/R/E/24/00069: 01.03.2024: Regarding Pension to CPIO, BHEL, Trichy
6. BHELD/R/E/24/00098: 20.03.2024: Regarding his dues to CPIO, BHEL, Trichy
7. BHELD/R/E/24/00120: 03.04.2024: Regarding Pension to CPIO, BHEL, Trichy The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF had held as under:
While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This fimction obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions.
This is to bring to your kind notice that as per record appellant is an ex-employee of BHEL, Trichy, joined BHEL on 15.06. 1974 as Jr. Executive and superannuated on 25.02.2011 as Addl. General manager from BHEL, HPBP, Trichy.
BHEL pension scheme is introduced in 2012 and is applicable for all BHEL. retired employees of the Company, at Board level & below Board level who retired on or after to 01.01.2007. During his service, the CBI filed a charge sheet in 2002 before the CBI Court at Madurai against Shri K. Chandrasekaran and others, alleging criminal conspiracy to cheat BHEL and criminal misconduct in relation to the award of a contract. In connection with this case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against. Shri K. Chandrasekaran. A Memo dated 24.01.2003 was issued for misconduct relating to negligent behaviour. Subsequently, on 16.06.2003, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of "Censure."
By Judgment dated 08.09.2006, the CBI Court found Shri K. Chandrasekaran and others guilty and imposed the following sentences:
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630040 Page 4 of 6Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default RI for 6 months Section 109 read with 420 IPC (aberment & cheating Rl for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months- Section 468 IPC (forgery) Rl for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default RI for 6 months- Section 471 read with 468 IPC (using a forged document as gemine) RI for 1 year Section 193 IPC (giving false evidence) In a separate matter, another disciplinary case was initiated against Shri K. Chandrasekaran in 2007. A Memo dated 25.06.2007 was issued for misconduct under the BHEL CDA Rules.
On 23.05.2009, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of "Reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay for 3 months, without cumulative effect and without adverse impact on terminal benefits,.."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that the main premise of the instant Second Appeal is non-furnishing of complete information by the PIO.
9. It is further observed that the CPIO, BHEL, Delhi as submitted by Ms. Lata Rani, Sr. Manager, CSR/CPIO, BHEL, New Delhi, information sought at point No. 3 and 4 of the RTI Application has been duly provided to the Appellant.
10. As regards points No. 1,2,5, 6 and 7 it is observed that the information sought in those points has not been furnished by the PIO and the same has been denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, on the ground that disclosure of the same would harm the competitive position of third- party. This position was further endorsed by the FAA which clearly indicates that the RTI application has been handled poorly and was not processed in a consistent or careful manner by the Respondent Public Authority. It is noted that the PIO neither in their reply/written submission File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630040 Page 5 of 6 nor during hearing justified the application of exemption clause (d) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
11. In view of foregoing, the Commission directs the PIO, BHEL, New Delhi to re-examine the instant RTI Application and furnish a revised reply with respect to point No. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the RTI Application within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Information exempted shall be redacted/severed as per section 10 of the RTI Act.
12. FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, BHEL, BHEL House, August Kranti Marg, Siri Institutional Area, Siri Fort Institutional Area, Siri Fort, New Delhi - 110049.File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/630040 Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)