Central Information Commission
Mr.Dinesh Kumar Awasthi vs Bsnl, Bhopal on 30 March, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/09/00211
Dated March 30, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr.Dinesh Kumar Awasthi
Name of the Public Authority : BSNL, Bhopal
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.12.8.08 with the CPIO, BSNL, Bhopal.
He requested for information against 3 points with regard to letter No.20- 9/2003-STG-II dt.27.3.08 signed by Shri R.R.Tiwari, Director (Staff) received in the O/o CGMT, MP Telecom Circle, Bhopal on 5.4.08. The CPIO replied on 12.9.08 stating that the case was referred to BSNL Corporate office for guidelines in respect of issuing of P.O. They were received form BSNL Corporate office vide letter dated 2.6.08 (CPIO enclosed a copy of the guidelines). He however denied disclosure of note sheets. He further stated that the case was again processed and latest vigilance clearance got from UP(East) circle. A letter was issued to Vigilance Officer of M.P. Circle to furnish the status of outcome of the CBI case which was pending against the applicant when he was relieved from M.P. Circle to Kanpur on transfer. The CPIO enclosed the letter issued to the Vigilance Wing of C.O. Bhopal. The CPIO also enclosed a copy regarding ruling for issuing P.O. of the officer against whom disciplinary/vigilance case was pending. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.15.10.08 with the Appellate Authority requesting for supply of information/documents/ruling/guidelines as per his RTI request. The Appellate Authority replied on 17/22.11.08 enclosing the copy of letter No. ST-/BSNL/Option/SDE/IIII/37dated 5.5.08 and U.P.(East) Circle letter No. Staff/P.O. Grp 'B'/Residual/AIC/08 dated 26.06.2008. He also stated that the available ruling has already been supplied vide letter dt. 19.9.08 and that note sheets cannot be provided. He invited the Applicant to inspect the note sheets on any convenient date. The Applicant filed a second appeal dt.12.1.09 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for March 30, 2009.
3. Mr. A.A. Khan, Asstt. Director (RTI) represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is presently posted at the Office of GM, BSNL, Telecom District, Kanpur. A charge sheet was issued to him in a corruption case and the CBI who is investigating the case, later on exonerated him. The Appellant then submitted the option for absorption in BSNL when he was in the M.P. Telecom Circle. But due to the pendency of the charge sheet, the Presidential order of the Appellant was received from DoT/BSNL after the Applicant was transferred to the U.P. Telecom circle on 30.4.05. So his Presidential order was not issued by the M.P. Telecom circle and was sent to the BSNL headquarters for guidelines. Guidelines were then sought from BSNL corporate office, New Delhi in respect of issuing the Presidential order. The Vigilance officer issued a letter to Under Secretary, Govt. of India, DoT, New Delhi to issue the vigilance clearance for absorption of the Applicant in BSNL.
6. The Respondent further stated that much of the information which the Appellant has sought has its routes in the confidential files of vigilance and staff sections. Apart from this, the notings in these files were recorded by the officers exclusively in a vigilance case for the senior officers, in full trust and confidence that their contents shall not be made public. The nature of information in the file notings has all the markings of fiduciary relationship. If the file notings are provided to the Appellant, he can identify the officers who had expressed their observation frankly in file notings. The information, therefore, is exempt under section 8 (g) and 8(e). The Respondent also added that the information is third party information and section 11(1) of the RTI Act is also applied in this case. According to the Respondent, for these reasons, it was decided not to provide the file notings but to allow inspection of files/records by the Appellant with the intention to apply severability clause of Section 10(i) on that part of the notings which do not contain any information which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
5. After hearing the submission of the Respondent and noting that all available information has been provided, the Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO/Appellate Authority and advises the Applicant to inspect the files on a convenient date as suggested by the CPIO.
6. The appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mr.Dinesh Kumar Awasthi S-4, Radha Madhav Apartment 117/H-2/162 Pandu Nagar Kanpur 208 005
2. The CPIO Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited O/o Chief General Manager MP Telecom Circle Bhopal 462 015
3. The Appellate Authority & Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited O/o Chief General Manager MP Telecom Circle Bhopal 462 015
4. Officer in charge, NIC