Central Information Commission
Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil - India Government Mint, Mumbai on 30 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Telefax:011-26180532 & 011-26107254 website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No: CIC/MP/A/2016/001104, CIC/MP/A/2016/001172, CIC/MP/A/2016/001179,
CIC/MP/A/2016/001240, CIC/MP/A/2016/001256,
CIC/MP/A/2016/001374, CIC/MP/A/2016/001510, CIC/MP/A/2016/001511,
CIC/MP/A/2016/001512, CIC/MP/A/2016/001518
Appellant : Shri S.A. Sherkhane, Mumbai
Public Authority : India Government Mint Mumbai
Date of Hearing : 22nd December, 2016
Date of Decision : 27th March, 2017
Present
Appellant : Present along with Shri Ravindra K Sellare - at CIC
Respondent : Shri Ashesh Avinashi, Dy Manager (HR) and Shri
YP Shukla, Dy Manager(OL) and CPIO - at CIC
1. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001104 1.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 13.01.2016 sought copy of the OM No. I- 24/1062/Admn./2015 dated 31.12.2015 along with all file noting & signature of the officers; copy of approval of competent authority for executing the said OM; copy of the report dated 28.02.2015 with reference to OM along with file noting and signatures of the officers; copies of all other order/reports and GM's approval which had been executed relating to the above said OM.
1.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 18.02.2016, provided copies of OM dated 31.12.2015 and denied information on points 1 and 5 u/s 8(1)(h), point 2 u/s 8 (1) (g) and (h) and 3 and 4 u/s 8(1)(g). On point 6, the CPIO informed that no information was available. Dissatisfied, the appellant made first appeal dated 16.02.2016. The FAA, vide order dated 15.03.2016, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not being satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission.
1.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had not been given any information and that he should be provided with the documents used for issuing the charge sheet.
1.4 The respondents stated that this RTI application was regarding the show cause notice issued vide OM dated 31.12.2015 to the appellant against leaking of confidential documents, being custodian of the same, while functioning as UDC in Administration Section. Since an inquiry was being conducted, they had denied the information. They had also informed that the enquiry proceedings were going on hence it was not possible to give the information as its disclosure could affect the enquiry process. Moreover, the appellant could ask for the documents during the disciplinary proceedings. 1.5 The Commission observes that since the proceedings have not been concluded, as stated by the respondents, the information sought cannot be provided. However, the respondents are directed to provide the designation of the officers who decided regarding the violations of rules by the appellant as asked for in point 5 of the RTI application. The Commission upholds the FAA's decision on rest of the points. The appeal is disposed of.
2. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001172 2.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 12.02.2016 sought copy of his letter dated 28.11.2014 & 08.12.2014 with reference to OM No. I-24/1389/Admin./2014 dated 19.11.2014 along with all file notings and signatures of the officer, copies of action taken report, letters/office orders/approvals and documents which was executed by IGM, Mumbai with reference to the said OM dated 19.11.2014, copies of action taken report/ letters/office orders/approvals/ documents & notices which were executed and issued with reference to the OM till date along with the name, designation of the officials who are dealing with the above case and who is the custodian/repository of all the documents in the case, name and designation of the officials who are responsible to the delay in the case, with reference to the said OM, copies of the report dated 04.07.2014 along with all file noting & signature of all the Officers, countersigned by the Officers & the copies of all the approval/document executed by IGM, Mumbai in order to execute the OM along with all file noting and signature of all officers, copies of rules/orders of the company promulgated from time to time regarding routine checking of bags on the main gate of office staff of IGM, information on when was the last time his bag was checked on the main gate of IGM, Mumbai w.e.f. 01.08.1997 to 03.07.2014, copies of the rules/orders of the company promulgated from time to time regarding opening of bag himself/herself by the office staff of IGM, copies of final output of the preliminary inquiry reports submitted by the inquiry officer along with his findings on each and every article of charges framed, name and designation of the executive of IGM who decided to issue Memo along with the article of charges, name & designation of the executive of IGM who decided that he violated Rule 4
(iii) & 26(1)(5)(8)(33) of SPMCIL etc through 15 points.
2.2 The CPIO vide reply dated 15.3.2016 provided copies of the letter on point 1, 4, 5 and denied information on point 2, 3, 10, 11, 12 and 14 under Section 8 (1) (g) & (h) & 8(1) (h). On point 6, the CPIO informed that the query was not in material form. On point 7, 13 & 15, the CPIO informed that the query was not specific. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 16.03.2016. The FAA, vide order dated 20.04.2016 upheld the decision of CPIO, stating that since investigation was in process the information sought could not be provided. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed second appeal in this Commission.
2.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondent stated that the appellant had been charge sheeted vide Memo I-24/1389/admin/2014 dated 19.11.2014 for not opening his bag on 04.07.2014 at the entry gate and refusing to obey the standing security orders of the Mint thereby acting in a manner unbecoming of the company worker and intentionally trying to establish wrong example of indiscipline to fellow workmen which was a threat to the security of the organisation. Moreover, the departmental proceedings were still continuing and they had denied the information as the proceedings were pending and disclosure could adversely impact the ongoing proceedings. 2.4 This Commission in its decision dated 10.7.2007 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11 (Shankar Sharma & Others vs DGIT) observed that the terms 'investigation' used in section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally and that no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken. This Commission in CIC/AT/A/2007/0007/00234 - KS Prasad vs SEBI, observed that " ... as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. ... which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority." This Commission in CIC/DS/A/2013/ 000138/MP - Narender Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, has held that the investigation in the matter was complete but further action was under
process, and hence it attracted section 8(1)(h) of the Act. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.
3. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001179 3.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 08.12.2015 sought copy of the OM No. I/24/957/Admin./2015 dated 07.12.2015 along with all file noting and signatures of the officers, copy of the approval of Competent Authority for executing Office Memo No. I/24/957/Admin./2015 dated 07.12.2015 along with all file noting and signature of the Officers, copies of any other orders and G.M.'s approval which have been executed relating to OM No. I/24/957/Admin./2015 dated 07.12.2015 along with all file noting and signature of Officers, regarding any officer, Deputy Accountant, Head Clerk reporting against him for absolute integrity/devotion of duty/misconduct/misbehaviour/negligence of work, or any other charges during the period 18.08.202 to 07.12.2015 and copies of the report of immediate Officer, DA, HC of the concerned section along with all file notings; copy of the Memo issued to him for the above along with all file noting and signature of the Officers, details of information kept under Section 8 & 9 in IGM, Mumbai upto 07.12.2015 through 6 points along with the inspection of all related original file/ records.
3.2 The CPIO vide letter dated 14.01.2016 intimated the appellant that the information sought was vast and could take time to collect the same. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.01.2016. The FAA, vide order dated 15.02.2016, provided copy of the OM dated 07.12.2015 and denied the information in respect of point 2, 3 and 5 under Section 8(1) (h) & 8(1) (g) & (h) of the RTI Act and mentioned that point 4 was not clear. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO the appellant filed this Second appeal in the Commission.
3.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the matter was regarding the harassment of a fellow lady supervisor by the appellant on which the competent authority has taken action by endorsing the instructions for not allowing the appellant to perform extended hours of working beyond 44 hours and issued Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2015. The appellant had sought information regarding the complaint and the inquiry and as the inquiry was still going on, it was not possible for them to provide the information.
3.4 The appellant stated that the inquiry had been completed and he should get the relevant information and documents. The respondents also stated that the matter had been concluded.
3.5 The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the documents as matter had been finalised, keeping in view the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of.
4. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001240 4.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 20.01.2016 sought copies of Office Memorandum No. I-24/46/Admn./2016 dated 12.01.2016, approval of Competent Authority, complaint received from the Woman Supervisor & Shift timing sheet, with the noting and signature of Admn. Section, name/designation and residential address of the authority involved in taking decision with reference to the above said OM, through 10 points. He also sought inspection of all related/original file etc 4.2 The CPIO denied information on all points except points 1 and 6. He, vide reply dated 24.02.2016, provided copies of OM dated 12.01.2016 and attendance muster of Admin Section in point 6. On the rest of the points, he stated that the query made was not specific. The FAA, vide order dated 15.03.2016, upheld the decision of the CPIO.
4.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondent stated that the information sought in this RTI application was regarding the harassment of the lady supervisor staff for which the appellant was charge sheeted and he, therefore, sought the documents in respect of that charge sheet along with the details of names and designation of the authority, etc. The appellant stated that the enquiry had already been completed and hence he should be provided with the information. The respondents offered to provide the documents and other information sought in the RTI application as the enquiry proceedings had already been concluded.
4.4. In view of the above position, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information sought by the appellant, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view, after checking that the matter has been finally concluded, within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
5. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001256 5.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 16.02.2016 sought information with reference to Office Memo No. Estt(C)/113/2013 dated 27.05.2013 & Office Memo No. Estt(C)/185/2013 dated 29.11.2013 regarding the issue related to the correction of his basic pay and copies of various letters submitted by him with SPMCIL and the action taken thereon, through 4 points.
5.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 15.3.2016, provided relevant copies against first three points and in respect of point 4 informed the appellant that information was being collected and would be provided. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.03.2016. The FAA vide order dated 27.04.2016 upheld the decision of CPIO mentioning that the APIO has furnished information on point no. 4 vide reply dated 23.4.2016 On point 4(a), the APIO has mentioned that the letters dated 15.04.2014, 03.06.2014 and 08.08.2014 were not traceable and denied the information on point 4(b) u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, but provided a copy of the guidelines for awarding compensatory off. On point 4(c) the APIO had informed that the information sought for was not available in material form. Not satisfied with the response of the respondents the appellant filed the second appeal.
5.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative reiterated the appellant's request for provision of all documents sought by him in his RTI application.
5.4 The respondents stated that they had provided all available documents except those which were being collected in respect of point 4 and would provide the rest on receiving/ depending on the availability.
5.5 After hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the respondent to provide the available documents asked for in point 4 keeping Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in view. The appeal is disposed of.
6. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001374 6.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 20.02.2016 sought copies of all letters submitted by SC/ST & OBC Mint Employees Welfare Association from 01.01.2005 and all papers/documents/approvals executed with reference to the above said letters submitted by SC/ST & OBC Mint Employees Welfare Association, copies of all letters issued by IGM, Mumbai to Taksal Mazdoor Sabha & Taksal Kamgar Sena, copies of all papers/ documents/approvals executed in IGM, Mumbai with reference to the letter dated 29.07.2015 and the SPMCIL, copy of MMDO No. 73 dated 13.08.2015 and approval of the competent authority dated 10.08.2015 along with all file noting and signature of the officers, copies of papers/documents/approvals executed in IGM, Mumbai for TA/DA claim submitted by Sh. Ramesh Kisan Kedare, Foreman, with reference to MMDO No. 73 dated 13.08.2015, copy of the Caste certificate of Shri Chandrakant R. Agwalkar, name of the officer who has taken decision that Shri Chandrakant R Agwalkar is the representative of SC/ST & OBC Mint Employees Welfare Association and also the name of the officer who has taken decision to nominate Shri Chandrakant R Agwalkar to attend the annual interaction programme between Corporate office and SC/ST/OBC Employees of SMPCIL, copy of the action taken report with reference to appellant's letter dated 09.05.2015, 17.07.2015 and 31.10.2015, name and designation of officer who were supposed to take action on letter dated 09.05.2015, 17.07.2015 and 31.10.2015 submitted by SC/ST/OBC Mint Employees Welfare Association, etc. through 10 points.
6.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 21.3.2016, provided copies of the documents in respect of points 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 & 10. In point 1, the CPIO intimated that the query was not specific. He denied information on points 2, 5 and 6 being third party information. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated 04.04.2016. The FAA, vide order dated 07.05.2016, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant has filed the second appeal.
6.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction over the information received.
6.4 The respondent stated that the appellant had sought voluminous information and most of the queries were interrogative in nature and also related to third party. The CPIO had, however, provided the available and disclosable information.
6.5 After hearing both the parties, the Commission is satisfied with the response of the CPIO and FAA but directs the CPIO to provide the action taken, if any, on the letter mentioned in point no. 9 of the RTI application within 20 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
7. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001510 7.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 07.03.2016 sought information regarding the officer who had taken decision to change his duty time, the name of the officer who had taken decision that the information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act as mentioned in the letter dated 15.02.2016, 18.02.2016, 24.02.2016 signed by Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, General Manager and Appellate Authority, through 4 points and a number of sub-points.
7.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 5.4.2016, provided copy of the letters dated 07.12.2015, 15.02.2016, 18.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 to the appellant. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 09.04.2016. The FAA, vide order dated 20.05.2016, provided further reply on some of the points. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and FAA, the appellant has filed this second appeal.
7.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that while he had been provided the documents, he had not been provided the inspection of the records to find out the officers involved in taking the decision. The respondents stated that since the disciplinary proceedings were going on, it was not possible to provide the names of the officers and allow inspection. They added that it was not possible to disclose the names of the officers in view of section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 also.
7.4 After hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the designation of the authority who had decided the matter without disclosing the name. The appeal is disposed of.
8. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001511 8.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 09.03.2016 sought information in respect of the authority who had taken decision to reimburse the children's education allowance after the end of the academic year through two points.
8.2 The CPIO vide reply dated 5.4.2016 provided a copy of office note dated 17.02.2016 and the approval dated 10.02.2016. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.04.2016. The FAA, vide order dated 23.05.2016 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant has filed this second appeal. 8.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he has received the desired information and was satisfied with the information received. The Commission does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
9. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001512 9.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 19.03.2016 sought list of documents by which particular charge were framed against him in Memorandum No. I-24/46/ Admn/2016 dated 12.01.2016, the xerox copies of the excel sheet with outturn certificate for Lot no. SB 183 to SB 497 along with inspection of the files.
9.2 The CPIO in his reply dated 20.4.2016 denied the information under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response of CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.04.2016. The FAA, vide letter dated 23.05.2016, upheld the CPIO's decision as the information pertained to commercial confidence between the customer and the Bank, disclosure of which would affect the commercial interest of the Company. Not satisfied with the reply of the respondents, the appellant has filed this second appeal.
9.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant had worked in the gold storage section and wanted information regarding statement of gold lots received under Gold Deposit Scheme which involves commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party.
9.4 On hearing both the parties and going through the available record, the Commission observes that the information sought was of confidential and sensitive nature and no larger public interest was involved in the matter. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
10. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001518 10.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 19.03.2016, sought xerox copy of the seniority list of security wings as on 23.11.2015; seniority list of classified staff as on 23.11.2015; copy of his transfer order from Admn Section to main gate; statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour, through seven main points coupled with a number of sub-points.
10.2 Not having received any information from the CPIO the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.04.2016. In the meanwhile, the CPIO vide reply dated 28.4.2014 provided copies of the documents asked for. The FAA, vide order dated 25.05.2016, stated that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and the CPIO had already provided available information to the appellant against point no. 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 of the RTI application. The information sought on point no. 2 was not specific and the CPIO was not supposed to interpret information or replies to interrogative/hypothetical questions. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and FAA, the appellant has filed this second appeal.
10.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had not been given complete information.
10.4 The respondents stated that the appellant had sought similar information against office memorandum issued in respect of harassment of lady supervisor and had sought voluminous information like various seniority lists, transfer orders, duty list, rules/orders/ notes, working hours/official hours, etc, yet the CPIO had persevered to provide him all available information. However, as the matter stands concluded, they would provide whatever other information was available with them.
10.5 On hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information, as available, on points where it was not provided keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view, within 20 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar Copy to:-
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority India Government Mint, India Government Mint, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
Shri Satish Ashok Sherkhane, U.D. Clerk, Main Gate, India Government Mint, S.B. Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.