Central Information Commission
Mr Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 31 January, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2020/695404
In the matter of:
Akhilesh Kumar Singh
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Steel Authority of India Ltd,
18th Floor, Scope Minar, North Tower, Core-1,
Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi - 110092
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 20/06/2020 CPIO replied on : 16/07/2020 First appeal filed on : 16/08/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 07/09/2020 Second Appeal filed on : 08/12/2020 Date of Hearing : 31/01/2022 Date of Decision : 31/01/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Dheeraj Kumar Tilwari/ DGM ( Pers) & CPIO; Smt. Sarmishtha Datta/ Sr. Mgr. & PIO, Durgapur, & Sh. Som Nath/GM ( P&A) & CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of the response of the Chief Secretary, West Bengal Government or anyone on behalf of the West Bengal Government to the letter No. CH/2/4- A dated 23/03/2020 of Chairman, SAIL.
2. Copy of the FIR lodged by the police of any State against any servant or agent of the SAIL for lockdown violation while attempting to perform official duty, anywhere in India.1
3. Copy of the provisions of the company to mitigate the sufferings of the servants and agents mentioned in S. No. 2.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal CPIO provided misleading information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant reiterated the contents of his second appeal. The CPIO submitted that available information was already given and there is nothing further to give the appellant.
Observations:
The appellant in his second appeal submitted that he was subjected to coercive action for not following a duty roster promulgated in violation of not only lockdown provisions but also Executive Performance Management System of his employer SAIL. The public authority SAIL had a statutory duty as per section 4(2) of the RTI Act to publish suomotu the information related to the lockdown ( permission to undertake the jobs assigned as per duty roster from competent authorities, lockdown period duty assigned as per company procedures applicable, lock down vehicle pass, details of support if faced criminal action for lockdown violation while obeying duty roster, details to compensate in case insurance claim rejection for violating lockdown provisions while obeying duty roster ). The public authority not only did not publish the relevant information but resorted to victimization when the RTI application was filed to get some of the relevant information. He alleged that malafide minor and major disciplinary proceedings were launched in quick succession and leave applied for absence during lockdown was rejected unlawfully. The biased disciplinary authority, acting malafidely, in exercise of power and in violation of principles of natural justice, imposed shockingly disproportionate penalty in a minor penalty case, to take vengeance and intimidate for exercising legal rights. The CPIO denied most of the information requested for without any valid ground under section 8 & 9 of the RTI Act. Whatever little information was provided, was incorrect, incomplete and misleading. On Appeal, the FAA didn't apply his mind and mechanically concurred with the CPIO without compensating losses as per section 19(8)(b)&(c). Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 16.07.2020 2 provided a point-wise reply to the appellant. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a first appeal on 16.08.2020. The FAA vide order dated 07.09.2020 disposed of the first appeal and concurred with the CPIO's reply.
The Commission observed that the appellant, except for point no. 4 of the RTI application had contested all the points as incomplete and misleading, however, the same was not amplified by the appellant nor substantiated. The CPIO submitted that available information was already given and therefore, no further action is required in this case. Moreover, any service grievance has to be taken up administratively by the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no ground to provide any relief to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3