Central Information Commission
Vijay Dhaker vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 6 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2024/618862.
Shri. Vijay Dhaker. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India.
Date of Hearing : 03.02.2025
Date of Decision : 03.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.02.2024
PIO replied on : 01.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 13.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 19.04.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 07.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"I made an application on 30/10/2023 to CMD, NPCIL to forward all my complaints against Ms. Nilofer Khan (Employee No-1230558) to Police authorities too (copy attached). Subsequent reminder was also sent on 30/11/2023 with copy to Honble Board of Directors.
Kindly provide me status of the said application and full details about all actions taken subsequently by the competent authorities."
The CPIO, Addl. Chief Engineer, NPCIL, Mumbai vide letter dated 01.03.2024 replied as under:-
"At present disciplinary inquiry proceedings are in progress against Shri Vijay Dhaker. The information requested is related to the Inquiry against Shri Vijay Dhaker thereby attracting the provision of Clause- 8(1)(h) of RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2024. The FAA, NPCIL, Mumbai vide order dated 19.04.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 1 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 31.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO, NPCL and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Ms. Shradha Gupta, CPIO, Mr. Vinod Tidke, Sr. Manager, Ms. Varsha Bhagat, Company Secretary- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought regarding present status of his application.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time frame. They averred that inquiry against the Appellant has been concluded but the enquiry report was pending consideration of the competent authority. The information sought by the Appellant being intrinsically connected to the inquiry per se, no information could be divulged till the report was finalised by the competent authority. They averred that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Application and due to the multiple, indiscriminate and repetitive filing of frivolous RTI applications by the Appellant, the officials of the respondent public authority are bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information instead of focusing on their core duties, leading to huge wastage of time and resources of public authority. They requested the Commission to declare the Appellant as a vexatious and frivolous RTI applicant.
Decision:
In the light of the above facts, it is noted that the response sent by the PIO is legally accurate. However, considering the latest development in the matter of completion of the enquiry and pendency of its finalization by the competent authority, the Respondent is directed to send a revised reply to the Appellant about the current status of the case as orally submitted during hearing. The revised reply shall be sent to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report in this regard shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission within one week thereafter. Considering the facts of the case, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
Page 2 The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)