Central Information Commission
Mrrednam Deepak vs Visakhapatnam Port Trust on 8 September, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000993
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001141
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002090
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002114
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002123
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2015
Date of Decision : 08.09.2015
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Rednam Deepak
Visakhapatnam, (A.P.)
Respondent : Shri K.V.K. Chand, CPIO
General Administration Dept. & Shri B.V.S. Satish, CPIO/Marine Engineer Vigilance Dept. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) Visakhapatnam Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Both parties are present. As both the parties are same in the above mentioned cases, therefore, they are being clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
The appellant vide following RTI applications has raised multiple queries. Details of all these are reproduced below in a tabulated form:
Appeal No. RTI Date PIO's reply First appeal FAA's order
000993 14.12.2013 30.01.2014 19.01.2014 25.02.2014
001141 15.10.2013 30.11.2013 19.12.2013 No order passed
002090 14.05.2014 10.06.2014 14.06.2014 No order passed
002114 23.04.2014 30.05.2014 03.06.2014 15.07.2014
002123 23.02.2014 16.06.2014 23.06.2014 No order passed
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000993
The appellant sought information on 24 points regarding copies of letters of CVO, VPT dt. 02.06.2011, 08.12.2011 & 17.04.2013 along with their note-files/office notes, action taken by CVO, VPT on CVC Memo dt. 13.06.2013, vigilance cases pending against Shri R. Ramulu, copy of Vigilance clearance certificate to Shri R. Ramulu and Shri T. Venugopal for the post of Sr. Dy. Secy./Sr. Personnel Officer, VPT, copies of letters dt. 02.02.2012, 25.06.2012, 08.08.2012 along with copies of Vigilance reports submitted on the same, etc. The PIO/CVO provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The FAA rejected the first appeal filed by the appellant stating that the appeal is redundant.
Page 1 of 6The appellant stated that the PIO has not provided any information at all. He stated that the letter dt. 02.06.2011 was written by CVO, VPT to CVC regarding the irregular selection process, subsequent to which the CVC had set aside the appointment. He stated that he has received the report from the CVC but no information has been provided by the CVO, VPT. He stated that major penalty was imposed on Shri R. Ramalu and T. Venugopal, but even then, DPC was conducted for them. He urged that Vigilance clearance certificates sought on Points 12 & 14 of his RTI application must be provided to him. He referred to several decisions by the Commission stating that the enquiry cannot go on ad infinitum and that it has to come to an end. He stated that this information has already been provided by CVC. He urged that the information as sought by him should be furnished by the PIO, free of cost.
The respondent stated that appellant has raised a number of queries regarding selection of Traffic Probationary Officers, Recruitment of Law Officer in 2008 and vigilance clearances of Shri R. Ramalu and T. Venugopal. The respondent stated that the appellant is raising queries on his whim. He stated that major penalty was imposed on Shri R. Ramalu and T. Venugopal, but the issue of annulment of their appointment is still being decided by the CVC. He stated that it is their apprehension that the appellant had, in fact, influenced the erstwhile CVO, VPT. He stated that he had applied for these posts of the Dept., but was found to be ineligible for the same. He categorically stated that the CVC is yet to arrive at a final decision and till that time, the information cannot be provided to the appellant.
The appellant stated that the CVC has not taken any action against these officers and that disciplinary proceedings are being carried out for namesake. He stated that the officers are still working on the same post. The respondent stated that Shr Ramalu has retired and that vigilance clearance was never given to him. He alleged that the appellant is unnecessarily raising these issues. He stated that no charge-sheet was issued against Shri Venugopal. He apprised the Commission that Shri Venugopal currently working the dept. could have been given a vigilance clearance but due to the appellant's repeated complaints, the clearance has not been given. He stated that the same matter has already been discussed and disposed of by the Commission in file no. CIC/SS/A/2012/002488 vide order dated 19.09.2013 and CIC/SM/A/2013/000332, 607 & 686 vide order dated 18.07.2013. He also referred to the orders by this Bench vide orders dt.16.06.2014 & 17.06.2014 and stated that information that could have been provided as per the provisions of the Act has already been provided to the appellant, in compliance of the Commission's orders.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001141 The appellant sought information on 11 points seeking copy of order dated 03.04.2013 along with its note file/office notes, order of Chairman, VPT nominating DPC members for selection to the post of Sr. Personnel Officer & Sr. Dy. Secretary, VPC, copy of their recommendations, copy of seniority list placed before the DPC for the said posts etc. CPIO provided point-wise reply to the appellant except on Points 2 to 4, for which he referred to the Supreme Court's order in Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas & Anr. dt. 13.12.2012 and stated that identity of examiners/interviewers of the Selection Committee cannot be disclosed. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal.
The appellant stated that information pertains to appointment of Sr. Personnel Officer and that the same should be provided to him. He referred to the Commission's decision in file no. CIC/SS/A/2012/003927 dt. 03.10.2013. He stated that the RTI application has been filed to promote openness and fairness. The respondent stated that information, as per available record, Page 2 of 6 has already been provided to the appellant. He stated that the information was denied on the basis of the order by the Supreme Court.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002090 The appellant sought information on 14 points seeking copies of letter of Chairman, VPT for sanctioning the post of Dy. CVO, VPT along with its note file/office notes/note-sheets, copy of approval letter, seniority list placed before DPC for selection of candidates for Dy. CVO, number of applications received, applications of shortlisted candidates, parameters for selection, selection committee proceedings etc. CPIO in his reply provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal.
The appellant stated that the post of Dy. CVO, VPT was sanctioned by the Chairman, VPT when he was not the Competent Authority to do so. He alleged that appointment of the Dy. CVO is one of the biggest recruitment scam. The respondent stated that information, as available on record, has already been provided to the appellant.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002114 The appellant sought information on 10 points seeking certified copies of OM dated 14.01.2011 along with its enclosures/annexure and note files/office notes/note-sheets, letter dated 14.10.2010 sent to CVC by CVO, VPT along with its enclosures/annexure and office notes/note-sheets, action taken on OM dated 14.01.2011, etc. PIO/CVO in his reply informed the appellant that similar information was sought by him in his earlier RTI application and the same was replied to on 07.11.2013. The FAA in his order upheld the reply of the CPIO.
The appellant stated that he wants information on Points 3 to 5 but the CPIO denied the same stating that it has already been provided to him but he has not got any such information. He stated that information relates to a contract between Vishakhapatnam Port Trust and Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, for hiring of labour from outside for collecting the spillage of cargo. The respondent stated that the matter has already been discussed by this Bench in file no. CIC/SS/A/2013/002131-YA vide order dt. 18.02.2014. He further stated that preliminary investigation reports had a lot of discrepancies and the same was factually incorrect and that the matter has been raised before the High Court. He stated that if this information is divulged to the appellant, then the same would impede the process of investigation. The appellant stated that the matter being sub-judice cannot be made a ground for denying completely information.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002123 The appellant sought information on 7 points seeking certified copies of all letters/orders/office orders/OMs/communication issued by the M/o Shipping on appointment of Dy. Traffic Manager, VPT along with note files/office notes/note sheets and entire correspondence between the Ministry and VPT, copies of letters from M/o Shipping to Chairman, VPT regarding reverting back Shri Ch. Avataramu to Labour Officer along with entire correspondence between the Ministry and VPT for the period January 1997 to December, 2013. The CPIO in his reply denied the information sought by the appellant u/s 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the appellant is habituated in seeking such information on one pretext or the other, wasting the precious time of the public authority. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal.
Page 3 of 6The appellant stated that the CPIO has malafidely denied the information and requested for imposition of penalty and disciplinary proceedings against the CPIO. He further requested for directions to provide the information. The respondent stated that the appellant has alleged corruption charges on all the officers of the VPT. He further stated queries of the appellant were not specific but vague. He further stated that the information pertains to the selection process of the individual, the information was denied.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission in F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000993, finds that the PIO has denied information on Points 1, 2, 6 to 21 u/s 8(1)(j). Indeed, the information sought by the appellant relates to entire note-files, action taken reports on vigilance cases pending against Shri Ramalu and Shri Venugopal. Further, he has sought copies of letters written by the Ministry to the Vigilance Dept. of the Respondent Port Trust, which the PIO has denied u/s 8(1)(j). As per the appellant, he is seeking the information in public interest; however, he has failed to establish the same. Merely, by saying that the information is sought in public interest is not enough. Information regarding vigilance clearance and cases pending against officers cannot but be viewed as personal to the officers vis-a-vis a person who is not an employee of the respondent authority (appellant) and is seeking such information, the same has to be viewed as constituting 3rd party information.
The Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission and Ors.; SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012; dated 03.10.2012, while dealing with such nature of information, had observed as follows:
"13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual..."
In view of the above, the information sought by the appellants on Points 1, 2, 6 to 21 of the RTI Application dated 05.07.2014 cannot be provided as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
As for Points 3 to 5, the same have been provided to the appellant, in compliance of the Commission's order in file nos. CIC/SM/A/2013/000332, 607 & 686 vide order dated 18.07.2013. For the remaining points, the respondent authority has categorically stated that the same is not available with them. A CPIO can only provide that information which is available on record and nothing more than that.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001141, the Commission finds that information, as per available record, has been provided to the appellant. As for the information on Points 2 to 5 and 8 & 9, the same has rightly been denied and the Commission does not find any reason to differ from the stand already taken. No further action is required to be taken in this matter.
Page 4 of 6In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002090, the Commission directs CPIO, Vigilance Dept., VPT to provide information on Point 10 regarding the parameters for selection to the post of Dy. CVO and a certificate to the effect that Shri S.V.S. Sudhakar, Dy. CVO has been appointed as per the parameters prescribed. This information shall be provided to the appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
In F. No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002114, the Commission finds that neither the appellant nor the respondent has furnished any details of the previous RTI application and its reply dt. 07.11.2013, referred to here. As for the PIO's submission that the case has already been discussed by this Bench in file no. CIC/SS/A/2013/002131-YA vide order dt. 18.02.2014, in which it was held that information, is to be provided except for the preliminary investigation report.
The Commission directs PIO, Vigilance Dept., VPT to provide a consolidated report of issue raised in the letter dt. 14.10.2010, referred to by the appellant, along with the status of pendency of the matter before the court of law, to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
In F. No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002123, the Commission finds that the information sought by the appellant is general in nature and not specific. He has sought for all correspondences/ communications between the Ministry of Shipping and VPT; some from January 1997 to December 2013. The disclosure of information of this amplitude will not only lead to diversion of resources in compiling the same but will also lead to unproductive man hours. Therefore, no further action is required to be taken in this matter.
Further, the appellant, in the above mentioned cases has filed RTI applications of varied nature, which have already been dealt by this Commission on more than one occasion. The nature of information sought can be enumerated as under :
1. Vigilance clearance certificate to Shri R. Ramulu and Shri T. Venugopal for the post of Sr. Dy. Secy./Sr. Personnel Officer, VPT.
2. order of Chairman, VPT nominating DPC members for selection to the post of Sr. Personnel Officer & Sr. Dy. Secretary, VPC,
3. copy of their recommendations,
4. copy of seniority list placed before the DPC for the said posts,
5. copy of letter of Chairman, VPT for sanctioning the post of Dy. CVO, VPT along with its note file/office notes/note-sheets,
6. copy of approval letter,
7. seniority list placed before DPC for selection of candidates for Dy. CVO
8. number of applications received
9. applications of shortlisted candidates,
10. parameters for selection and selection committee proceedings,
11. copies of all letters/orders/office orders/OMs/communication issued by the M/o Shipping on appointment of Dy. Traffic Manager, VPT and entire correspondence between the Ministry and VPT, along with note files/office notes/note sheets, etc. The scope of information sought is vast and cannot be compiled without disproportionately diverting the resources of the resources of the respondent public authority. The sheer gamut of information sought by the appellant would indeed have been extremely time-consuming and expensive. Still, information has been provided by the respondent authority, as per record. The public authority has already spent inordinately large number of man hours in furnishing the Page 5 of 6 information to the appellant, which in the process would have already impinged on the scarce resources of the organization.
The Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. held, "37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The Commission advises the appellant to be more careful in future while filing RTI applications, which are repetitive in nature and seeking humongous amount of information, with a view to overawe the Public Authority.
With these observations, the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Page 6 of 6