Central Information Commission
Mr.D K Pandey vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 15 May, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000645/2491
15 May 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. D. K. Pandey
½ Vastu Vihar,
Gurudwara Road, Mango,
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
Respondent 1- CPIO & RPFC-II
EPFO
Regional Office
Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House,
Karamtoli, Ranchi- 834001
2- CPIO & RPFC-I
EPFO (HQ)
14 Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi- 110066
RTI application filed on : 07/02/2012
PIO replied on : 26/03/2012 & 25/04/2012
First appeal filed on : 20/03/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 13/04/2012
Second Appeal received on : 10/05/2012
Information sought:
1. Sri Ram Prakash Yadav, Proprietor of M/s U.K. Electricals, Jamshedpur alleged against Sri D. K. Pandey, S. S. of SRO, Jamshedpur for demanding bribe. Complaint copy of which may please be provided to me.
2. On the base of his allegation Rule 12 was initiated against Sri D. K. Pandey copy of the note sheet inquiry report alongwith statement of witness also be provided.
3. Number of such type of allegation against whom in EPFO officials action taken against them since April 2000 may please be provided.
4. Detail of property of the alleged officials of EPFO of Sl. No.(iii) available with EPFO may please be intimated.
5. Agency has been formed by the government to trap such type of alleged officials after obtaining complaint by the complainant. After receiving complaint from Sri Ram Prakash Yadav, whether EPFO suggested to him to go to CBI of any other anti corruption agency, copy of which may please be provided to me.
6. As M/s U.K. electrical was a contractor Estt. And applied for PF Code no. proprietor of which was advised to furnish requisite required papers in view of CPFC circular no.
CPFC/PS/2005 no. 30516 dated 12.01.05 on which he alleged Shri D. K. Pandey for Page 1 of 3 demanding bribe. The stand of Sri D. K. Pandey for submission of such paper was essential or not in view of the disciplinary authority and his comments/view may please be provided.
7. Vigilance wing of EPFO has been empowered to arrest under prevention of corruption Act seize property under Section 82 & 83 IPC & House searching power of alleged official and accused officials of EPFO, is yes the copy of may be provided to me.
8. Vigilance wing of EPFO has been empowered to prepare draft charge sheets against the charged officials copy may be provided to me and number of prepared draft charge-sheets by EPFO vigilance since 2000 to date.
9. Vigilance wing of EPFO has power to direct disciplinary authority for initiating proceeding if yes its copy may also be provided to me.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not given satisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. D. K. Pandey through TC (M): 09431178163 Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar CPIO's representative Ranchi through VC M: 8987460742 & Ms.Uma Mandal CPIO Delhi Tele: 011-26100251 The appellant stated that he has not been provided the complete information in response to his RTI application dated 07/02/2012. The CPIO explained that information on point nos. 2 & 6 relate to Ranchi office which has already been given by them to the appellant. As regards the other information she has brought a point wise reply dated 06/05/2013 a copy of which will be forwarded to the appellant. She pointed out that in certain queries viz. 3, 4 & 8 the appellant had sought information about the disciplinary proceedings and property returns relating to other officers which is exempt under Section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act as he has not cited any larger public interest to justify the disclosure. She added that there is no information on record relating to query 5 & 7.
Decision notice:
As stated by the CPIO she should forward a copy of her submissions dated 06/05/2013 to the appellant within 03 days from the date of receipt of this order.
As regards the information sought under queries 3, 4 & 8 which relate to the disciplinary proceedings/property returns of other officers the same is exempt in view of the recent Supreme Court decision dated 03/10/2012 [Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others [SLP (Civil) No.27734 of 2012]. As regards the information sought under query 5 & 7 there is/are no information/document(s) on record. The CPIO's submissions are in order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3