Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shri.Debashish Dutta vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 20 January, 2012

                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                        Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003284+003359/16990
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003284+003359

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant                               :       Mr. Debashish Dutta
                                                Scientific Officer-D
                                                Physics Group,
                                                Van de Graff Building, BARC,
                                                Trombay,Mumbai-400085

Respondent                              :       Mr. S. Goverdhan Rao

PIO & Head (Personnel) Central Complex, IIIrd Floor, Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), Trombay, Mumbai - 400085.

RTI application filed on                :       14/06/2011
PIO replied                             :      08/07/2011
First appeal filed on                   :      NOT ENCLOSED
First Appellate Authority order         :      06/09/2011
Second Appeal received on               :      16/11/2011

Sl.                    Information Sought                                   Reply of the PIO

a. Overriding factor(s), if any, in favour. Of sanctioning\ the This project was given to you as; you are project with Undersigned scientific officer as principal having graduate degree . in Mechanical collaborator. Engineering. You were made project coordinator expecting that you would be able to shoulder responsibility commensurate to your grade.

b. Factor(s) in favour of aforesaid Since you did not show progress in this replacement. Discipline of project, you were replaced as project engineering, if any of the head spearheading the nomination that coordinator with another senior mechanical materialized the replacement (vide HWD/A-42/1557 dt. engineer to expedite the project work by Nov.19/20,1977) with his service status -serving/retired . If then Head Heavy Water Division. This retired, pension holder or expired grade pay at which pension is change was communicated to you vide drawn. IF the replacement procedure favours cryoless qualified letter No. HWD/A-42/1557 dated mechanical engineers at the cost of time and money of cryo November 19, 1997. specialized qualified mechanical engineers, even if the specialization is from an lIT.

c. If the replacing officer acquired any higher degree subsequent to This is not a requirement for assignment of joining service, whether the study for the degree was sponsored work as project coordinator. white in service or GATE score based scholarship funded and the institute awarding the degree and the name of the specialization. If GATE score based, year of the same requested with disciphne.

d. If the member secretary, ESC, BRNS to The competent authority, Head, heavy whom the letter regarding replacement Water Division had the authority of Page 1 of 3 (item b above for letter details) is different from the member replacement in the interest of progress of secretary, ESC, BRNS. At the time of sanctioning the project. project. e. Present status of the project. If any This project has been completed as refrigerator and/or liquefier procured from abroad subsequently scheduled. No liquefier has been procured incorporating helium expansion turbine in its design, by Heavy Water Division. specification details with its price in INR (or equivalent currency of the nation from Where procured.). . Price should Indicate. basic price with duties paid, if any, with the purpose and urgency to this effect. if the number of said item exceeds one, any variation in design of expansion turbine(s) exist(s) or uniformity exists.

f. Modification, if any, with details carried out to continue with the This was the evolving project and report is project. If any submitted to proper authorities (BRNS) as efforts(s) exercised to undo the said per BRNS rules. replacement. factor(s) working against such effort(s) that nullifies such effort(s).

g. Any fresh recruitment(s) carried out to work and/or man the No additional manpower was recruited project If yes, preferred schemes of recruitment and the present for this project. grade(s) of officers with entry level qualification details and Present qualification details with reasons to keep Undersigned officer outside the domain of Cryogenic engineering including attending seminars / conferences etc. in the field.

h. Any new division came into being in BARC work Specifically This information is available on BTS in the field Cryogenics Subsequent to the said replacement name website. of the division and the group in which it falls under. Service status of superior- officer initiating the below normal rating with grade pay at which salary is drawn or pension is drawn according to present service status.

i.   Any noticeable fallout(s), if any due to the said replacement and     The grades are based on output and
     subsequent below normal ratings that is repeated even after           deliverables by appropriate
     division change                                                       authorities.

by transfer, Below normal rating is a benchmark for promotion- refer earlier CIC order on ACR disclosure to applicant himself. Should the resulting fallout(s) be from undersigned account with time factor and price thereon or it may come from elsewhere too-details be provided.

j. If the undersigned officer ever found not worth retaining in Officers are always given chance to service by any superior officer ever reported to with agreement improve. by higher authority as appropriate, the present grade and division/unit & DAE where the superior officer presently employed. Discipline of engineering may also be provided of the said officer. If such remarks amount to termination of service and violates any Article of constitution same be Informed of under RTI, Act.

k.   Information on transfer carried out ignoring the specialization in    Then Head, Heavy Water Division
     M.Tech, BARC training School batch and work assigned                  gave a free hand in seeking transfer
     subsequently.                                                         to anywhere else suitable to
                                                                           choice vide WHD/Per?01/301 dated
                                                                           14-3-2001. You were transferred to
                                                                           the Division of your choice.
l.   Any malpractice(s) recruitment and subsequent division                NO
     allotment of the undersigned.

m. If any fiduciary relationship excludes the undersigned from Question does not arise.

having above information, factors in favour of existence of such relationship and its continuation and if it need to be at the cost of time and money of undersigned officer.

Page 2 of 3

n. Information on fixing the responsibility regarding career Responsibility for career improvement improvement subsequent to damage rests with authority as lies on you. found deemed fit at present or the undersigned need to continue with damage as such.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) It is found that the information sought by appellant has already been provided by the PlO, BARC in adequate manner within the prescribed time limit. Acceptance of the grounds/reasons for arriving at certain decisions by the Appellant is not covered by RTI Act. The PlO has furnished information as applicable under the Act. The Appellant may note that RTI Act is not a platform to redress his grievances, real or imaginary, regarding his transfer/postings/career progression. FAA upholds the information given by PlO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Debashish Dutta on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio; Respondent: Mr. S. Goverdhan Rao, PIO & Head (Personnel Division) on video conference from BARC -Studio;
The Commission has identified that this matter also been listed as case no. CIC/SG/A/2011/003359 which has been listed for hearing on 24/01/2012. Hence this matter was also disposed with this.
The Appellant appears to have been given information available as per records. He is seeking reasons for his being replaced in a particular project. The PIO states that apart from the letters given to the Appellant there are no reasons on the records.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The reasons available on the records have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 3 of 3