Central Information Commission
Mr.Manoj Kumar Anand vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 9 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001447/8463
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001447
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Anand
WW, 69, GF, Mlibu Towne,
Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122018.
Respondent : Mr. Chandrakant Pagare
Public Information Officer & Assistant Director (Vigilance) Employees Provident Fund Organization Ministry of Labour, Government of India 341, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051.
RTI application filed on : 05/11/2009 PIO replied : 25/11/2009 First appeal filed on : Not filed First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 26/02/2010 Date of Notice of Hearing : 16/06//2010 Hearing Held on : 09/07/2010 S.No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether the matter against M/s Pratibha Not replied.
Industries was closed after receiving the said penalties as applicable under the PF Act.
Why was the investigation letter sent after five months and whether a report from the RPFC, SRO Vashi, was sought before starting the investigation. If yes, then information regarding that report.
2. The name of all the The case bearing no. Vig(WZ)31(214)09 was Departments/Directorates/Agencies that had registered for investigation in respect of been asked to furnish information regarding Pratibha Industries as per EPFO HQ directions Pratibha Industries and information vide letter no. Vig.VIII(7)09/8685 dated regarding the direction that were received by 30/04/2009 and CVC O.M. No. the PIO from the Directorate of Central Conf/1817/09/46555 dated 22/06/2009. A Vigilance Commission for investigation of report in the matter was forwarded to CVO, the above Company. EPFO. The matter was under consideration of the Vigilance HQ of EPFO.
3. Whether the associate companies of Pratibha Information sought is exempted from disclosure Industries were also under investigation. If under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 1 of 2not, then reasons why information on them was also being sought.
4. The purpose with which the copies of Bills Five demand drafts submitted by you bearing S. submitted/Vouchers relating to payment and Nos. 196386 to 196390 payable to AD(Vig) returns were asked for, regarding each were returned to the Appellant. The same contract awarded to Pratibha Industries. The should be reissued in favour of RPFC, Mumbai. manner in which the same would help.
5. Whether the investigation was indirectly Appeal lies with the Chief Vigilance officer, being done against any of the officers of the EPFO, Delhi. Directorate. If yes, then whether the necessary permission was obtained. In case it was, then who had given such permission.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not filed.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
First appeal was not filed by the Appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Manoj Kumar Anand;
Respondent: Mr. Chandrakant Pagare, Public Information Officer & Assistant Director (Vigilance);
The Respondent has claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) and stated that providing information would impede the process of investigation. The Respondent states that a preliminary inquiry was done which reveal that an officer of EPF appears to have under assessed the dues of the establishment. It also appears that there may be other associate companies. Presently if this information is revealed it is likely to impede the process of investigation since the details would be available of the suspected evasion. The appellant states that the inquiry has been completed and certain penalty has been imposed and hence the investigation is completed. The respondent states that in this case there is a suspicion that the order passed was under assessment of the dues and hence the department need time to decided whether action should be taken against the said officer and further investigations will be required. Looking at the circumstances of this case the Commission feels that the respondent has made a reasonable case that disclosure of information might impede the process of investigation. In view of this the Commission upholds the exemption claimed by the PIO under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 09 July 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND) Page 2 of 2