Central Information Commission
Dr. Neeraj Kumar vs National Institute Of Pharmaceutical ... on 8 January, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NIPER/A/2018/621431
Dr. Neeraj Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Institute of Pharmaceutical ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Education & Research
Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers
Through: Sh. Manoj Tiwari - CPIO
Date of Hearing : 07.01.2021
Date of Decision : 08.01.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.02.2018
PIO replied on : 16.03.2018
First Appeal filed on : 09.04.2018
First Appellate Order on : 07.05.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint dated : 24.05.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2018 seeking information on following 05 points:-
1. Information on the date to which Dr. Saranjit Singh (An accused person for high level of corruption/fund bungling in CBI-FIR) has attained the retirement age of 60 years and the total money released to him till date after attaining retirement age of 60 years.
2. Provide the information on the name of other persons who have attained 60 years age and their matter is not subjudice in any court of law, along with the date of completion of 60 years. Also provide the total amount released to them after attaining 60 years.
3. Provide a copy of the order/note/document of competent authority through which the salary/perks of the employees whose matter is not subjudice, is released after 60 years of age despite the ministry letter dated 02.03.2016 regarding retirement age, if any. Also provide the name and designation of the competent authority in the same.
4. Provide a copy of undertaking/affidavit to payback of the salary amount which is drawn after 60 years in the situation if Hon'ble High Court upheld the ministry order of 60 years retirement age, if any.
5. In case of no undertaking/affidavit to payback the salary amount from the employees having over 60 years age, please provide the information Page 1 of 2 on the name and designation of competent authority that will be responsible for the loss to NIPER/government exchequer.
CPIO, vide letter online reply dated 16.03.2018 rejected the request for information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.04.2018. The FAA, vide online reply dated 07.05.2018 observed the RTI application seeks information on issues either with regard to CBI investigation or different ages of superannuation of faculty, information regarding which is held in fiduciary capacity, hence denied under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the FAA upheld the reply of the PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing has been scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing through video conference, while the Appellant has not attended the hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance. The Respondent stated during hearing that the Appellant is an ex employee of the Respondent organisation and was removed from service by the disciplinary authority in 2013, on the attaining the age of superannuation at the relevant point of time. The retirement age was subsequently revised and increased, while the appellant having already retired was obviously aggrieved. Hence, the appellant started filing random RTI applications trying to malign the institute on various counts.
Decision:
Considering the fact that the queries raised by the Appellant in this case qualify for exemption from disclosure under the RTI Act, being held by an employer in fiduciary capacity as part of an employer-employee relationship, no infirmity is found in the response given by the Respondent. Moreover, the Appellant has neither attended the hearing nor buttressed his case. Hence, the Commission is not inclined to interfere in this case.
The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2