Central Information Commission
Mehander Singh vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 23 September, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2023/645910
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/C/2023/645913
Shri Mehander Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.09.2024
Date of Decision : 19.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/compliant:
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
on appeal /Complainant
received on
645910 01.08.2023 01.09.2023 14.09.2023 21.09.2023 25.09.2023
645913 01.08.2023 01.09.2023 14.09.2023 21.09.2023 22.09.2023
[The aforementioned cases arise out of similar queries, contested between the
same parties and hence are clubbed together for the purpose of ease of
adjudication]
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/EPFOG/A/2023/645910 (2) CIC/EPFOG/C/2023/645913 The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "I may kindly be provided with the information on the basis of calculations of no. of leaves deducted from my leave account.
2. I may be provided the certified copy of the noting and correspondence of the file in which my case of attendance/leave deduction was dealt with.
3. I may be provided the certified copy of my biometric attendance for the period Feb, 2021 to Nov, 2021.
4. I may be provided the detailed reason for undue reduction in my salary for the month of May, 2023, June, 2023 and July, 2023.
5. I may be provided the reason for rejection of my medical leaves for the period 22.05.2023 to 26.05.2023 and 27.05.2023 to 30.05.2023.Page 1 of 4
6. I may be provided the total no. of cases whose leaves have been deducted for non marking biometric attendance for the period Feb, 2022 to April, 2023 and also provide the total no. of cases whose transport allowance has been deducted from their salary for non marking attendance for the whole month for the period Feb, 2022 to April, 2023.
7. I may be provided the reason of total no. of 96 leaves deducted from my leave account."
The CPIO/Regional PF Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Delhi vide letter dated 01.09.2023 replied as under:-
"1. It has been observed that Sh. Mehander Singh, Sr. SSA was absent on various occasions without prior sanction of leave and he also did not mark exit attendance on various occasions. 01 EL each for 02 occasions of non-marking of exit attendance and 01 EL each for whole day's unauthorized absence were debited from leave account of Sh. Mehander Singh, Sr. SSA. System generated report of such non-marking of entry and exit attendance on Biometric Attendance System is attached herewith for ready reference.
2. The basis and decision regarding deduction of leave has already been conveyed at Point No.1 above. Further, due to his unauthorized absence, disciplinary proceeding has also initiated against Sh. Mehander Singh, Sr. SSA as per the approval of the competent authority in the file noting. However, since file notings are internal deliberation and the disciplinary proceeding has not yet been concluded, copy of file noting cannot be provided to Sh. Mehander Singh, Sr.SSA.
3. System Generated report of the Biometric Attendance is attached herewith. Since, it is system generated, it doesn't require certification.
4. Sh. Mehander Singh, Sr.SSA was posted for Work From Home in connection with the work of Call Centre during the 2021 and was normally not required to attend office. However, it appears that with a view to inappropriately avail the amount of Transport Allowance, he marked only entry attendance for just one day (2 days in Oct, 2021) in a whole month during his posting in Call Centre work from home; he did not even mark exit attendance. When the said irregularities in availing Transport Allowance was noticed, Admin-II Section was issued Office Note for recovery of the said amount subsequently from his salary. Further, due to unauthorized absence on various occasions, Office Notes were issued to Adm-ll section for regulating his pay accordingly. Copy of the said Office Notes are attached herewith which were also marked to Sh. Mehander Singh, Sr.SSA. Further, other reasons, if any, for reduction in salary is to be provided by Adm-II section for which a copy of this RTI Application is being sent to CPIO, Adm-II.
5. Though reason for rejection of leave is not available in the login of the leave rejecting authority, however the said leave might have been rejected for want of proper medical certification in prescribed format or due to non-availability of leave in the leave account of Sh. Mehander Singh, Sr.SSA.
6. No such compilation of cases is maintained and the matter is dealt in separate respective files. However, it is mentioned here that periodically the attendance of employees is scrutinized and based on facts of each case; decision regarding deduction of leave is taken by the competent authority. Recently, in the month of August, 2023, leave has been deducted from leave account of 88 officials for absence / failure to mark attendance. Further, there are 08 recent cases where Transport Allowance availed earlier in irregular manner was recovered subsequently.
7. Information as provided at Point No.1."Page 2 of 4
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 21.09.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A joint written submission dated 12.09.2024 has been received from CPIO reiterating the aforementioned response sent by the Respondent. Copy of the submission has been duly sent to the Appellant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Applicant: Heard through audio conference Respondent: Shri Raushan Kumar - RPFC-II/CPIO and Ms. Prachi Jayaswal - AO were present during hearing The Applicant stated over telephone that he was dissatisfied and believed that accurate and correct information had not been provided to him, in an unfair manner. The Respondent on the other hand stated that PIO had repeatedly furnished complete information available in their records as permissible under the RTI Act. He has placed reliance on the aforementioned written submission dated 12.09.2024 stating that the entire factual matrix of the case has been narrated therein. He contended that gross indiscipline were noticed as per the attendance record of the Appellant generated from the Biometric Attendance System (BAS), including the fact that the appellant habitually did not mark exit attendance while leaving office. In complete defiance of the Memorandum dated 06.12.2022 issued to him for the said lapses, he continued to exhibit gross disobedience and failed to mark his exit attendance even thereafter. Therefore, half day's leave for each instance of non-marking of exit attendance was debited from his leave account. Communication dated 31.03.2023 was issued to the appellant informing him about deduction of EL due to non-marking of exit attendance. Eventually his misconduct was reported to the Vigilance Section and disciplinary action was initiated against him after approval of the Disciplinary Authority.
Decision:
In the light of the abovementioned factual position, it is evident that complete information available on records, as per the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided by the Respondent.
The written submission dated 12.09.2024 filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory information, copy whereof has also been duly sent to the Applicant.
CIC/EPFOG/C/2023/645913 The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent responses based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of Page 3 of 4 information arises in this case and hence no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
CIC/EPFOG/A/2023/645910 Since appropriate information has already been furnished in this case, no further intervention is warranted under the RTI Act. Before concluding the decision, the Commission finds it worthwhile to remind the Applicant that dispute resolution or grievance redressal do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act.
In the given circumstances, since appropriate information stands duly disseminated in the aforementioned cases, no further intervention is warranted in these cases. The cases are disposed off on the above terms.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)