Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Lokendra Gupta vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 29 November, 2019

                                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/NPCOI/A/2018/137310


 Lokendra Gupta                                               ... अपीलकताग/Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम




 CPIO, Nuclear Power                                       ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
 Corporation of India Ltd.,
 Rajasthan.



Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 21.12.2017              FA      : 20.02.2018               SA      : 13.06.2018

 CPIO : 16.01.2018             FAO : 16.03.2018                   Hearing : 11.11.2019


                                    ORDER

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), Rajasthan, seeking copies of all the complaints (Hard copy as well as e-mail) made by one Shri Rajesh Giri against the appellant.

2. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide information on the plea that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e), (g) and (h) of the RTI Act. He contended that the information was wrongly denied under Section 8(1)(e), (g) and

(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Lokendra Gupta and the respondent Shri Rameshwar Lal Bunkar, Senior Manager Head & Shri Mahavir Sharma, APIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India, Kota attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant submitted that one Shri Rajesh Giri who resided with him, had quarrelled with him. In view of this, Shri Rajesh Giri had filed a complaint against the appellant with the respondent department and with the police. Hence, he is seeking copies of the same from the respondent department. He stated that an enquiry has been conducted by the department in this regard, and NPCIL had also correspondended with the police. He added that NPCIL has also issued letters to him regarding the enquiry. He contended that without the copy of the complaint(s), he would not be able to defend himself, but the respondent is yet to provide a copy of the complaint(s). He, therefore, requested that the respondent be directed to provide the information sought for.

5. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 16.01.2018 that the documents sought for are third party documents and cannot be shared as (a) investigation is under process involving these documents and matter is also sub-judice and disclosure of the documents may impede the Page 2 of 4 process, (b) these are held by the respondent in a fiduciary relationship and (c) revelation of the documents may cause threat to the physical safety of the parties. Hence, the same cannot be shared under Section 8(1)(h), (e) and (g) of the RTI Act. He further clarified that the aforesaid inquiry was for the absence of the appellant from the duty and not on the basis of any complaint(s) made by Shri Rajesh Giri. He also informed that the "so called complaint" filed by Shri Rajesh Giri had not been received by NPCIL. Hence, the question of providing a copy of the complaint(s) does not arise.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that, as per the respondent, the documents sought for by the appellant cannot be furnished to him as the same had not been received by the respondent authority. The respondent had also contended that inquiry in the matter is not on the basis of any complaint made by Shri Rajesh Giri. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that complaint made by Shri Rajesh Giri (referred to in the RTI application) has not been received by the NPCIL and that inquiry against the appellant is not on the basis of any complaint by Shri Rajesh Giri. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 29.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Central Avenue Road, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai - 400094.

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Rawatbhata, Rajasthan Site PO- Anushakti, via Kota, Rajasthan-323303

3. Shri Lokendra Gupta, Page 4 of 4