Naveen Nishchhal vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation on 17 November, 2021

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Naveen Nishchhal vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation on 17 November, 2021

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                                के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/CMPFO/A/2020/678298

Naveen Nishchhal                                         ......अपीलकता /Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO,
Coal Mines Provident Fund
Organization, RTI Cell, Police
Line, Hirapur, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand- 826014                                  .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :   16/11/2021
Date of Decision                  :   16/11/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   17/02/2020
CPIO replied on                   :   23/03/2020
First appeal filed on             :   21/04/2020
First Appellate Authority order   :   05/06/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   16/07/2020




                                        1
 Information sought

The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 17.02.2020 seeking the following information;

1. "With reference to the ongoing vigilance enquiry into the recruitment of PF inspectors through /BPS by the office of the Chief Vigilance Officer, CMPFO please provide following information/documents etc.

(a) Whether the office of the CVO receive any complaint directly or indirectly regarding the recruitment of PFI. If yes, then provide the copy of the such complaint.

(b) Whether the same complaint was verified by the office of the CVO. If yes then provide a copy of that verified complaint.

(d)Whether the then CVO in 2017 initiated the enquiry suo motu . Whether there were any reasonable ground for doing the same. If yes then state clearly the cause behind this enquiry. Whether the CVO has such powers to initiate such enquiry without any basis.

(e) Please provide the name, cadre and present posting of the CVO who ordered this enquiry.

(f) Whether any formal or informal request or order was made by the then Commissioner CMPFO to the then CVO to inquire into this PFI recruitment . If yes then provide the relevant details such as office orders/letters.

(g) Whether there is any investigation by any outside agency being done in this matter. If yes then provide details.

(h) Whether there is any prosecution by any agency being done in this matter. If yes then please provide details.

(2) Whether a personnel selected through the IBPS recruitment (LDCs or PFIs) be part of this enquiry.

(3) Whether personnel who have completed three years of service in the vigilance section be allowed to continue in that section. Whether there any such personnel in your section. If yes then whether they need to be transferred out of this section.

(4) Please provide the copy of note sheet as put up regarding this enquiry into PFI recruitment till date.

(5) Please provide the note sheet of Office Note No. CMPF0/120/Rect.Complt./HQNig/Vol-III/987 dated 02.09.19 along with a copy of this Office Note. Whether the same been issued with the approval of 2 the CVO. Whether the repeated requisition of signature and thumb impression constitute the violation of right to privacy (6) Please provide the note sheet of Office Note No. CMPF/l20 /Rect.Complt./HQNigNol-III/15 dated 03.04.19 along with a copy of the Office Note. Whether the same been issued with the approval of the CVO. (7) With respect to thumb impressions and signatures of PFI taken on many occasions in the name of above enquiry please provide whether the same was tested/examined by any agency. If yes then provide the result or report given by that agency.

(8)Whether there is the attendance sheet available duly signed by the invigilators of On line exam of PFIs. Please provide the colored scan of my attendance sheet excluding other candidates."

The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 23.03.2020 and denied the information against points no. 1, 4- 7 under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. With regard to points no. 2, 3 & 8, the CPIO provided factual information to the Appellant.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2020. FAA's order dated 05.06.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO. He further narrated his grievance regarding initiation of inquiry proceedings against him regarding his recruitment / selection for the post of PFI.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through audio-conference.

Respondent: Chandra Kant Verma, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through audio-conference.

The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the denial of information by the CPIO ignoring the fact that he was one of the affected parties in the said inquiry. He further harped on the fact that no inquiry as such has been initiated against him, only his name has been impleaded among the list of erred officers just to harass him.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 11.11.2021 as under -

".....2. It is worth mentioning here that the information sought under RTI Act by Shri Naveen Nishchal relates to the ongoing Departmental Enquiry in connection with impersonation of candidates in the online examination conducted by IBPS, Mumbai followed by Skill Test/Interview of shortlisted candidates by EdCIL, New Delhi in the year 2014-15 in respect of the posts of LDC and PFI and also a Case No. RC. 05(A)/2020 (D) has been registered by the CBI, ACB, Dhanbad for the impersonation of candidates in the post of LDC and PFI and the case is under progress. Shri Naveen Nishchal was one of the candidate of PFI appointed through the above examination conducted by IBPS, Mumbai followed by Skill Test/Interview of shortlisted candidates by EdCIL, New Delhi in the year 2014-15. Prima facie the case of impersonation of 13 candidates in the post of LOC and 02 candidates in the post of PF1 were came to light on verification of thumb impression/signature in the Admit card of Online Examination and Interview/skill test with reference to the present thumb impression/signature through Central Finger Print Bureau/NCRB (CFP13) etc. Accordingly, a Departmental Enquiry against the erring officials have been constituted by the Disciplinary Authority followed by registration of a Case No. RC. 05(A)/2020 (D) by the CBI, ACB, Dhanbad. Both the departmental and outside Enquiries are underway. As such, the custodian of the documents (i.e. Vigilance Wing of CMPFO Headquarters, Dhanbad) did not provide the documents to the applicant as per the provisions of Section-

8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005, as the information sought by the applicant would impede the ongoing both the investigation being conducted by Department and CBI as mentioned above.

3. It is evident from the RTI application of Shri Naveen Nishchal that he has made questions relating to the powers of the Chief Vigilance Officer for initiating the Departmental Enquiry in the case as mentioned above. Initially, Ministry of Coal, Government of India which is the Administrative Authority of the Organisation had forwarded a complaint alleging the recruitment of one of the candidate namely Munna Kumar to the post of LDC in CMPFO in the year 2014-15 was irregular as someone had impersonated on his behalf. Based on which, the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Appointing Authority ordered to initiate the Departmental Inquiry against 13 Officials in the cadre of LDC and 02 Officials in the cadre of PFI after verification of the thumb impression/signature through the approved Government Agency. Apparently, the case of impersonation in 15 cases came into light in the recruitment of CMPFO for the year 2014-15 as mentioned above.

4. Since, the matter is highly confidential besides the Departmental Enquiry and CBI investigation both are simultaneously under progress too. Hence this Office is not in a position to provide the documents and information relating to the aforesaid matter to the RTI applicant at this stage."

To a query from the Commission, the CPIO submitted that the departmental inquiry as also CBI investigation is under process on this issue. The Commission directed the CPIO to share a copy of his latest submission with the Appellant, to which the former expressed reservation being confidential in nature.

Decision:

The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the information sought for at points no. 1- 3, second part of points no. 5-6 and points no. 7-8 of RTI Application concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarifications/inferences from the CPIO based on his interrogatories. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.

His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to 5 furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." Emphasis Supplied Now, considering the prayer of Appellant the limited scope of relief lies at point no. 4, first part at point no. 5 and first part at point no.6 of RTI Application for which the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply along with relevant available information concerning the Appellant only on the said points after redacting the personal details and identifying particulars of the third parties disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act. In the event, no records on such points are available in their office, then this fact should be categorically reflected in the revised reply of the CPIO.

The aforesaid reply and information along with his written submission dated 11.11.2021 shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant through speed post within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission