Central Information Commission
Jayanta Das vs The National Small Industries ... on 18 March, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NSICL/A/2018/103378
Jayanta Das ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. Micro, Small & ... ितवादी/Respondent
Medium Enterprises, National
Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Kolkata, W. B.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13-10-2017 FA : 14-11-2017 SA:16-01-2018
CPIO : 10-11-2017 &
FAO : 08-12-2017 Hearing: 17-03-2020
19-01-2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, National Small Industries Corporation Limited, Kolkata seeking information as follows:-
"It is necessary to know from your office record and from the personal file of Shri Jayanta Das, Ex-Manager, NSIC Ltd.:-
A) Who was the Appointing Authority of Shri Jayanta Das on 10.03.1981 as LDC (Lower Division Clerk) posted at NSIC Sub-Office, Patna?
B) Whether the Regional Office at Calcutta of NSIC was the Appointing Authority of Shri Jayanta Das as LDC (Lower, Division Clerk) and posted at NSIC Sub-Office, Patna on 10.03.1981?
C) Please provide the certified copy of the Appointment Letter of Shri Jayanta Das as LDC (Lower Division Clerk) in the NSIC Sub-Office, Patna from your office record for which I am agreeable to pay the necessary cost and charges.
Page 1 of 5D) Whether Shri Jayanta Das was ever posted at New Delhi at any point of time during his service period?
E) Under what provisions of law/rules, the Disciplinary Authority has appointed Inquiry Officer and the presenting officer having office at New Delhi in the Disciplinary Proceeding against Shri Jayanta Das? May I now request you Photostat documents relating to the Certified Copy of my Appointment Letter?"
2. The CPIO responded on 10-11-2017 & 19-01-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 14-11-2017 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 08-12-2017. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Jayanta Das attended the hearing along with his counsel, Mr. R. A. Sarkar, Advocate through video conferencing. Mr. B. K. Mitra, Sr. Branch Manager participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to clarify as to what provisions are applicable in his disciplinary proceedings and in what manner the respondent public authority has appointed the inquiry officer and the presenting officer having office at New Delhi in his disciplinary proceedings.
5. The respondent informed the Commission that they have already furnished the sought for information with reference to the RTI application as available in their records to the appellant vide their letter dated 19-01-2018 thereby enclosing copies of the relevant rule position on the subject. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the respondent has already provided the requisite records containing the rule position on the subject to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the queries raised by the appellant are presumptive in nature which requires analyses and interpretation of documents in order to provide clarification as to what provisions are applicable in his disciplinary proceedings and in what manner the respondent public authority has appointed the inquiry officer and the presenting officer having office at New Delhi in his disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, this sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) Page 2 of 5 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, wherein it was held as under:-
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot Page 3 of 5 expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 17-03-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
M/o. Micro, Small & Medium
Enterprises, CPIO, The
National Small Industries
Corporation Limited, 20B,
Abdul Hamid Street, 7th Floor,
Kolkata, W. B. - 700069
2. Jayanta Das
Page 5 of 5