Central Information Commission
Prof Swapan Garain vs University Grants Commission on 19 August, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2020/665879
Prof Swapan Garain ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002
CPIO,
Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
RTI Cell, PO No. 8313, Deonar,
Mumbai-400088 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 18/08/2021
Date of Decision : 18/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/09/2019
CPIO replied on : 15/11/2019
First appeal filed on : 29/11/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
1
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/03/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 11.09.2019 with UGC seeking certified copy of the Memo/letter, with internal notings/comments, and inward/outward entries if any, of the TISS Competent Authority approving his suspension with effect from 29.03.2016.
The CPIO, TISS furnished a reply to the appellant on 15.11.2019 stating as under:-
1. " A confidential note by the Registrar, TISS dated March 29, 2016 along with the comments of the Director, TISS.
2. The information of Whats app group created by Dr. Garain."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.11.2019 on the following grounds:
"(b) Being part of the Personnel Section of TISS, the CPIO is well aware of the difference between Appointing Authority and Competent Authority, as per TISS Bye-Laws Service Rules. The CPIO has not provided any information document related to approval of suspension by TISS Competent Authority.
(c) The Confidential Note referred by CPIO in his Reply point-1 is purportedly about illegal use of TISS logo along with comments of the Director. By any means, this is not the approval of suspension by the Competent Authority for Dr. Garain.
(d) The CPIO has misled and provided false information vide his Reply point-
2, by referring to a WhatsApp Group Chat log."
Based on the said contentions, the Appellant sought for the following information from the FAA:
"(a) The name of the specific Competent Authority for the Faculty/Professors at TISS Mumbai, as per Bye-Laws Service Rules applicable, citing specific section/clause of the Service Rules referred.
(b) The name of the specific Disciplinary Authority for the Faculty/Professors at TISS Mumbai, as per Bye-Laws Service Rules applicable, citing specific section/clause of the Service Rules referred.
(c) The name of the specific Appointing Authority for the Faculty/Professors at TISS Mumbai, as per Bye-Laws Service Rules applicable, citing specific section/clause of the Service Rules referred.2
(d) Certified copy of the Memo/letter with internal noting/comments from the Competent Authority for Dr Swapan Garain approving his suspension.
(e) Certified copy of the email from the Competent Authority for Dr Swapan Garain, approving his suspension.
(f) Certified copy of inward/outward entries in related register, for the Memo/letter from the Competent Authority for Dr Swapan Garain, approving his suspension.
(g) Certified copies of the related complete, specific and true Information, as requested herein above in this section, within one week, at free of charge."
FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent No.1: Rajesh Kumar, Section Officer (CPP-I/DU) & Rep. of CPIO present through audio conference.
Respondent No.2: Shahji Chavan, Admin. Officer & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO as he has not provided the approval of the competent authority of TISS for his suspension and what has been provided cannot be the basis for his suspension and alleged that the same is in violation of the relevant bye-laws and service rules.
Respondent No.2 submitted that the information provided to the Appellant is as per the availability of records and as such each of the additional points raised in the First Appeal was adequately responded to vide their letter dated 11.03.2020 providing the specific reference of the applicable bye-laws. It was further submitted that the Appellant is in possession of the available approval order of the Director, TISS for his suspension.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the letter of 11.03.2020 and insisted that the specific bye-law should be clarified to him.
Decision:3
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the prayer or relief sought for in the First & Second Appeal amounts to seeking additional information i.e information sought for in addition to the RTI Application based on the inputs received from the CPIO and the same is not tenable under the RTI Act.
Moreover, the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing were not per se related to the access to information but more in the nature of seeking grievance redressal for what he believes is a suspension order issued in violation of the extant service rules. The said issues are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the 4 Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, Respondent No.2 has adequately addressed the further clarifications sought for by the Appellant in the First Appeal vide their letter dated 11.03.2020 which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
However, in view of the claim of non-receipt of the averred reply by the Appellant, Respondent No.2 is directed to resend a copy of the reply dated 11.03.2020 to the Appellant and to facilitate him further, the relevant extract of the bye-laws/service rules referred to therein may also be highlighted by the CPIO. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by Respondent No.2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Respondent No.1 shall ensure compliance of the above directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5