Central Information Commission
Tajpal Yadav vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 13 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/RK/A/2016/000939
Dated 11.07.2017
Appellant : Shri Tajpal Yadav,
121, Pushpanjali Nagar,
Phase-III, Shahganj, Agra,
Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,
Transport Aircraft Division,
Kanpur Division, Chakeri,
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
The Central Public Information Officer,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,
15/1, Cubbon Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 03.08.2015
CPIO's reply : 12.08.2015
First appeal : 02.12.2015
FAA's order : 23.01.2016
Second Appeal : 10.02.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Chairman, Corporate Office, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), Bangalore seeking information on twenty-eight points in connection with various issues including his wrongful termination from service, non-payment of his monthly Page 1 pay, etc. including, inter-alia, copy of the (i) enquiry report by one Shri Anurag Sahai, CVO, Bangalore against Shri R.C. Sharma and others and (ii) the action taken by the Chairman HAL against Shri R.C. Sharma and others.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought has not been provided to him by the respondent. The appellant has sought the following reliefs from the Commission:
i. Direct the respondent to provide the information sought by him; ii. Impose a penalty on the erring officials as per the RTI Act, iii. Award suitable compensation of Rs. 1,16,10,000 to him and iv. Initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO and the FAA, HAL, Kanpur.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Tajpal Yadav was not present despite notice. The respondents Ms. Vipula Saran, Senior Manager (HR), HAL Kanpur and Shri Kumar Swamy, Chief Manager (Security), HAL, Bangalore attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent (HAL, Kanpur) submitted that on receipt of the RTI application from HAL, Bangalore, information along with the relevant documents was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 25.08.2015. Hence, no further information remains to be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission further observes that since, the information was provided to the appellant, it cannot be said that the information was malafidely withheld by the CPIO concerned. Hence, no case for imposition of penalty is made out. With regard to the grant of compensation as prayed by the appellant, the Commission observes that due Page 2 to the absence of the appellant it could not be established as to what loss or detriment was caused to him. In view of this, no case is made out for the award of compensation to the appellant. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page 3