Central Information Commission
Mrgirish Bhushan Goyal vs Bhel on 17 September, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001877/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 17th September 2014
Date of decision : 17th September 2014
Name of the Appellant : Sh. Girish Bhushan Goyal,
R/o T90, Shivalik Nagar, Ranipur,
Distt Haridwar (Uttrakhand)
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Heavy Electrical Equipment Plant, Ranipur,
Haridwar 249 403
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Haridwar.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri Girish V., Senior Executive (HR) & CPIO.
2. Ms. Shreysi Singh, Senior Executive (Law).
3. Shri Rajendra Bisht, Senior Executive (Law).
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 27.2.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding the number of officials chargesheeted for misconduct under Rule 5 (1) "Theft, fraud or dishonestly in connection with the business or property of the company". The Respondents stated that they were not maintaining the information sought by the Appellant and were, therefore, unable to provide it. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant filed second appeal dated 14.6.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 25.6.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated the reply already given by them to the Appellant. The Appellant stated that in response to an earlier RTI application, the Respondents had informed him that seventy two officials were chargesheeted for misconduct between 200809 to 21.2.2013. He further submitted that in his RTI application dated 27.2.2013, he had asked for the number of officials, out of the above seventy two, who were chargesheeted for misconduct under Rule 5 (1) and that it should not be difficult for the Respondents to provide this information to him.
3. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties, we direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by the Appellant, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
4. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar