Central Information Commission
Mrr K Jain vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 3 May, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000661
Appellant : Shri R.K. Jain, New Delhi
Public Authority : M/o Statistics & Programme Implementation, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : May 3, 2016
Date of Decision : May 3, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Present - at CIC
Respondent : Shri Tapan Mitra, Director, Shri D.K. Sharma, US and
Shri Rajeev Anand, SO - at CIC
ORDER
1. Vide his RTI application dated 20.12.22014, Shri R.K. Jain, sought information regarding Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, ISS, through ten points (from A to J). He had asked for (A) file number from which study leave was granted to the officer; (B) date of grant and cancellation of study leave; (C) number of note sheets and pages in each file with respect to point (A); (D) certified copy of all note sheets and file covers; (E) date wise details of movement of files; (F) whether any vigilance enquiry was initiated against the officer along with the date of initiation; (G) whether charge sheet was issued to the officer along with date; (H) date wise complaints receive against the officer from 1.1.2013 till the date providing information; (I) suo motu action initiated by MoS&PI against the officer and (J) the name, address and phone no. of the CVO.
2. The CPIO, vide his order dated 27.1.2015, provided information on the first 5 points along with the details of complaints received against the officer in the records of ISS Division. He further held that the information sought in (E) and (F) of the RTI application had been sought from the vigilance cell that had informed that the information related to the disciplinary matters and documents and therefore could not be provided. Dissatisfied with the information received, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that the CPIO's order was incorrect and the information sought by the appellant was not exempt u/s 8 or 9 or any other provision of the RTI Act, therefore, there was no valid cause or reason for not providing him the information. He added that the CPIO erred in invoking section 8(1)(h) as he had not explained as to how disclosure of information would impede the investigation. The FAA held that the information sought in points (F) and (G) related to the personal information and that in point (H) regarding details of complaints, had already been supplied by the ISS Division. Aggrieved with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the FAA had failed to appreciate that the appellant had sought information in larger public interest. Therefore, the information even if taken to be exempt under 8(1)(j) should have been provided to him. The exemption u/s 8(1)(h) also had been claimed wrongly as it had no where been mentioned as to how it would impede the process of enquiry. Therefore, the FAA's response on three points, i.e. (F), (G) and (H) holding the exemption u/s 8(1)(h) was not correct.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had not been given the date regarding initiation of enquiry or issue of charge sheet in the matter sought by him in point (F) and (G). He had also not been given the date wise details of complaints received against the officer from 1.1.2013 till the date of providing information. he also added that as far as point (B) of the RTI application was concerned where he had asked for the date on which study leave had been granted and the date of cancellation of study leave, the CPIO had intimated him that study leave was granted to the officer "w.e.f 26.5.2014 and the same was withdrawn with immediate effect vide order dated 3.12.2014". While in the case cancellation of leave, he had been provided the date of the order cancelling it, the same was not done regarding the order sanctioning the leave. As was clear from his RTI application, he had asked for the date when the study leave was granted. The respondents stated that they had provided all the information sought by the appellant. As regards points (F) and (G), they could not provide as at that time, the matter was under process, but as of date disciplinary action stood initiated with the issue of charge sheet to the officer. They further added that they had provided the list of complaints along with date of complaint, date of receipt, the authority to whom addressed and the subject of complaints in respect of complaints made by Shri R.K. Jain which was available with them and they do not maintain any employee wise information with respect to complaints received.
4. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission directs the CPIO to (i) provide information on the date of issue of charge sheet to the officer which should not in any way impede the process of enquiry, therefore, could not be held to be exempt u/s 8(1)(h); (ii) give the date of sanction of study leave to the officer,; (iii) in case the information regarding all complaints received against a particular employee is maintained in a consolidated manner, provide information regarding the complaints received against the officer, within 15 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 M/o Statistics & Program Implementation M/o Statistics & Program Implementation Sardar Patel Bhawan Sardar Patel Bhawan Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 Shri R.K. Jain 1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg Wazir Nagar New Delhi-110003