Central Information Commission
Tufan Naiya vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 14 March, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NCFSC/A/2023/604242
Dr. Tufan Naiya ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2024
Date of Decision : 12.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.10.2022
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : 27.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 24.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"(1) If someone's misdeed is punishable as per SC/ST Atrocities Act and the victim approaches the NCSC (because of the unresponsiveness of the Sate Govt to the complaint of the victim), kindly inform whether in such case, NCSC has any right to make a settlement (such as giving warning or asking for taking corrective measures) with the offender/accused for saving him/her from the punishment mentioned in the atrocities act.
(2) As the State Govt had failed to provide me the justice, I, therefore, had submitted several petitions (with documentary evidences of deliberate violation of reservation during recruitment, fabricating register of roster and providing false excuses to avoid punishment under the section of SC/ST Reservation Act, 1976) against University of Calcutta at NCSC office at Kolkata. Relief sought was imprisonment for the offenders as per section 7 of WB SC/ST Act, 1976. Earlier Mr. D Bala and presently Mr. A Bhattacharya (in earlier communication, he was mistakenly mentioned as A Banerjee) are always keen to save the university authority from the punishment as mentioned in the section 7 of WB SC/ST Act, 1976 and also in the various sections of IPC. They always want to dispose the matter by correcting the register of roster only, for some unknown reasons.
Though, NCSC has informed me that the excuse given by the authority of University of Calcutta is "deplorable", NCSC could not take any visible actions against the then authorities of University of Calcutta (CU) even after 6 years since the petition has been submitted (File No. 9/13/2016- Gen/WB). Such negligence Page 1 of 3 of NCSC authority may attract the various sections of IPC like 166A, 166B, 188 and 120B. With respect to same, kindly provide me the following:
a) When the NCSC always tries to save the university authority for their misdeed (ignoring the punishment clause which is applicable for this misdeed and also mentioned in the section 7 of WB SC/ST Reservation Act, 1976) by asking them only to make necessary correction in the roster, kindly inform whether the NCSC has right to do so, or not.
(b) When Section 7 of the WB SC/ST Reservation Act, 1976 ensures punishments for an offense for the defaulters, kindly inform whether NCSC has any right to save the offender from punishment by allowing the offenders to make some necessary correction to their misdeed.
(c) Kindly inform under which section of the act, NCSC can ignore the legal provisions of punishment especially when it is mentioned in the WB SC/ST Reservation Act,1976.
(d) Kindly inform under which order/circular/act NCSC can recommend correction of roster instead of recommending for statutory penal provisions
(e) Kindly inform me whether, disciplinary action will be taken against the Mr D Bala (ex- employee), Mr. Arunabh Bhattacharya and any other official(s) working presently at Kolkata office for not addressing my grievance properly & and not providing me the reliefs which was sought under section 7 of reservation act."
Aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO within time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 04.03.2024 stating that all the information had been duly provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.05.2023, copy whereof is enclosed. Copy of the written submission as well letter dated 09.05.2023 have been duly marked to the Appellant, contents whereof as under:
(a)The duties/functions of the NCSC has been defined in clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution of India. Further to deal with grievance/representation on service matter of the SC officers/employee, the Commission has made rules of procedures to deal on such matters under para 7.4.1 (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) which are available on the NCSC Hand Book, 2016 available at www.ncsc.nic.in. Moreover, the Commission also advised & recommended of rectification of errors of violation of rules to authority concerned time to time.
(b)The NCSC is Constitutional Body for protection of safeguards provided to the SCs under Constitution or any other law. The Commission is also issued its recommendation to the concerned authorities for rectification of errors and taking affirmation action.
(c)The NCSC never recommends for violation of rules or to suggest for ignorance of legal provision to any of the authorities.
(d)The Commission has mandate of inquiry/investigation of the individual case of deprivation of rights to SCs and in this regard, the Commission can recommend/suggest for correction/affirmation action. The Rules of Procedure to deal with the case may be seen at NCSC website available at www.ncsc.nic.in.
Page 2 of 3(e)No any action was initiated against any of the officers of NCSC, State Office, Kolkata Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Jashi Minz - CPIO and Shri Y K Bansal - Consultant were present during hearing.
Respondent present during hearing reiterated their contentions, as mentioned in the written submission dated 04.03.2024 noted hereinabove, which indicates that information as available on record had been duly provided by them to the Appellant.
Decision:
In the light of the facts and circumstances, it is noted that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case. In the given circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of the written submission dated 04.03.2024, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress this case hence no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3