Central Information Commission
Dinesh Berry vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 5 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2017/135774
Appellant: Dinesh Berry
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Bharat Bhavan,
4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate,
P. B. No. 688, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001.
Date of Hearing: 01.03.2018
Dated of Decision: 01.03.2018
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 27.03.2015 seeking information on 23 points regarding disciplinary proceeding, chargesheet dated 27.01.2003 against him etc.
2. The CPIO response is not on record. The appellant filed first appeal on 05.11.2016 with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The appellant filed second appeal on 26.05.2017 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
3. The Commission vide order No. CIC/SH/C/2015/900305 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000315 dated 27.09.2016 had disposed the complaint matter on the similar RTI application of the appellant.
Hearing:
4. The appellant and the respondent Shri Sushil Patil (Sr. Manager, HRD) participated in the hearing through VC.
5. The appellant stated that sought for information has not been provided to him. The appellant stated that he had submitted medical bills and medical certificate in support of his medical claim but he did not retain copy of the same. The appellant stated that his medical bills were reimbursed by the company. The appellant stated that he has been charge sheeted and disciplinary action was initiated against him and consequently he was dismissed alleging that he had has been unauthorisedly absent. However, his medical claim and its reimbursement negate the stand of the management.
The appellant stated that he has been informed that the sought for documents are not available. The respondents are not saying that the documents have been destroyed. The appellant stated that he had also asked the inquiry office to summon the document from staff department however, the inquiry officer has not called the said documents. The appellant stated that his first appeal has not been replied to by the respondent. In addition, the appellant stated that the respondent had changed inquiry proceedings and copy of all document of inquiry proceedings has not been provided to him.
6. The respondent stated that the appellant has been replied that the sought for information is not available with them. The respondent further stated that the appellant was chargesheeted and dismissed from service for unauthorized absence and for not reporting to his new posting place. The respondent further stated that the retention period of medical bills is 7 years. The appellant's case is 12 years old. In addition, the respondent stated that the first appellate authority had replied to vide order dated 21.11.2015 and concurred with views of the CPIO. The respondent further stated that appellant had also sought similar query in his RTI application dated 16.05.2017 which was replied to vide letter dated 22.06.2017 and whatever information was available with them has been provided to the appellant. In addition, the respondent stated that all document relating to disciplinary proceedings had been provided to the appellant.
7. The appellant stated that he has not received reply dated 22.06.2017. Further, the appellant stated that a case of recovery of Rs. 25 lacs is filed against him in Noida and he is not in a position to defend the case without this information.
Discussion/ observation:
8. The Commission observed that the sought for information has been provided to the appellant. The steps/action taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application is satisfactory. However, a copy of reply dated 22.06.2017 should be sent to the appellant by registered post. Decision:
9. The respondent is directed to take action as stated in para 7 above, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar