Central Information Commission
K Babu Rao vs Csir Hqrs.,New Delhi on 12 March, 2020
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
Decision no.: CIC/CSIRD/A/2018/635578/03106
File no.: CIC/CSIRD/A/2018/635578
In the matter of:
K Babu Rao
... Appellant
VS
Under Secretary & CPIO
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research
Anusandhan Bhawan, 2 Rafi Marg,
CSIR Head Quaters, New Delhi - 110 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 25/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 14/09/2018 First appeal filed on : 25/09/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 29/10/2018 Second Appeal dated : 16/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 11/03/2020 Date of Decision : 11/03/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Secretary & CPIO alongwith Ms Nita Singh, Section Officer, both present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant made a complaint to DG, CSIR in July 2018 on the inaction on his complaint to Director, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT) on extensive plagiarism in a consultancy report. A Fact Finding Committee (FFC) comprising of Chairman, Research Committee(RC) and a Member, RC of IICT was formed. The FFC submitted its report on 11-12 August 2018. In this regard the appellant has sought the following documents/information:
1. Copy of the FFC report.1
2. Documents containing the action taken on the FFC Report.
3. Copy of any CSIR policy document that deals with ethics and scientific misconduct.
4. List of scientists/officers/ employees of CSIR punished in the last five years under ethical/scientific misconduct. Provide details of the punishment given to each scientist/officer/employee.
5. Copies of documents that define various offences under ethical/scientific misconduct in CSIR and its institutions and the quantum of punishment prescribed for each offence.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as none of the points raised by him in his RTI application have been adequately replied to by the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the appellant on 14.09.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply dated 14.09.2018 was not complete. On points no. 1 & 2 of the RTI application, the CPIO in his reply had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act while stating that the matter is under examination and has yet to attain finality. On a query to the CPIO whether the Report can be shared with the appellant at this stage, the CPIO submitted that the FFC Report is still pending with the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter it will be sent to CVC. Hence, at this stage also, the report cannot be shared with the appellant. The Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO on these points, however, the CPIO is directed to explain this in writing by way of a categorical reply to the appellant.
With regard to points no. 3 4 & 5, it is noted that no final reply was given to the appellant after these points were transferred to other Sections. The CPIO is therefore directed to collect information on these points and provide the same to the appellant.
2File no.: CIC/CSIRD/A/2018/635578 Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply on all the points raised by the appellant as per the discussion held during the hearing. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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