Central Information Commission
Mrsv Jayanthi vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation on 17 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001120-YA
Date of Hearing : 05.09.2014
Date of Interim Decision : 05.09.2014
Date of Decision : 17.08.2015
Appellant : Smt. V. Jayanthi
Cuddalore (T.N.)
Respondent : Shri N.Srinivasan, CPIO
Shri Shridhar, FAA,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited,
Cuddalore, (T.N.)
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant fact emerging from appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 22.11.2012
PIO replied on : 21.12.2012
First Appeal filed on : 02.01.2013
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 31.01.2013
Second Appeal received on : 19.03.2013
Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
Appellant sought information on 18 points relating to her husband Shri V.Veerasamy.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present. Appellant authorised Shri ICA Dass to represent her case. Both the parties are heard through video conferencing. Appellant filed an RTI application seeking the above information. CPIO vide letter dt 21.12.12, provided information on point no.16 and 17 and the information on points No.1-15 and 18 was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. FAA disposed of the first appeal by upholding the stand of the CPIO.
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the information sought by the appellant in her RTI was not provided to her. Respondent submitted that the information sought has been provided to the appellant as per provisions of the RTI Act.
On a query by the Commission whether the substance of enquiry based on a report given by the Vigilance Committee, was provided to the appellant, CPIO replied in the affirmative. A copy of the order passed by the disciplinary authority was provided. FAA submitted that order of the FAA was revised and information available on record was provided to the appellant. Respondent further submitted that matter is pending in the Court.
Interim Decision:
The Commission directs both the parties to submit their written submissions on the information sought and the information provided by respondent or received by appellant in detail, indicating their stand on the issue. Written submissions of both parties should reach the Commission within two weeks from the receipt of this order. Judgement is reserved.
Decision:
Appellant through written submission dated 09.09.2014 submitted as follows:
1. "Had the PIO and FAA have acted in accordance with the provisions of RTI the appellant would have sought appropriate remedy from the Courts for the offences under IPC and NLC Conduct Rules 22 by her husband.
2. The three FIRs Nos 503/2010, 188/2011 at Neyveli Township, Police Station and 5/2013 in All Women Police Station, Neyveli in Cuddalore District of Tamilnadu have been referred as mistake of fact for want of proof. Had the PIO Page 2 of 8 and FAA have acted in accordance with the provisions of RTI the appellant would have sought appropriate remedy from the Courts through the FIRs.
3. Even in the departmental inquiry it was deposed by a PW that the marriage ceremony has taken place in the mentioned temple.
4. The inquiry by NLC was a farce because the evidence of MW5 has riot been appreciated.
5. The PW Ms Sarswathy the mother of the second wife of the appellant's husband was dropped by the Inquiry officer.
6. They supplied a bunch of papers dated 21.03.2014 stating that they are in reply to my RTI request not on their own but after I have filed s Writ petition No. 31000/2013 before the Honourable High Court in which they have taken notice and entered appearance. (The affidavit is enclosed). The bunch of papers is also deficient since neither they are numbered or paginated. Further to Q.1\10.4 the Charge Sheet has not been supplied with charges, imputation, list of MWs and PEX. To Q No 14, the PIO/FAA should have taken steps u/s 5 collect the Medical Book and supplied to the appellant.
7. Thus the PIO has not furnished information within the time specified u/s 7 (1) of the RTI. The FAA has malafidely directed the PIO to provide incomplete and misleading information and also obstructed flow of information u/s 19 (2) of RTI.
The PIO/FAA to compensate the appellant for the loss incurred and detriment suffered.
Hence the PIO and FAA are liable to be prosecuted under Sec 19 through a departmental inquiry, u/s 20 (2), to pay compensation u/s 19 (8) (b), the expenses incurred by the appellant in rushing -5o High spurt, Madras and defray the expenses incurred in the long drawn RTI requests."
Respondent through written submission dated 18.09.2014 submitted as follows:
"Smt V. Jayanthi had sought certain information with regard to service details, copy of the first page of Service Book, Family details of Shri V. Veerasamy, CPF No.26249, Senior Executive Engineer, Mine-I under 18 queries vide her letter dated 21.11.2012 received by this office on 22.11.2012.
1. It is submitted that the 2nd appeal relates to the application made to CPIO which had been numbered as 318/2012 dated 22.11.2012 on the file of the CPIO/NLC.
2. The CPIO had furnished the relevant information for the query no. 16 & 17 to the appellant and remaining queries were rejected under the Section 8(1) (j) vide letter No. PRD/CPIO/318/2012-3 dated 21.12.2012. Aggrieved against the reply furnished by the CPIO, the applicant has submitted her first appeal to the FAA vide her letter dated 02.01.2013.
3. In NLC Ltd., two Appellate Authorities have been nominated viz., Appellate Authority- I and Appellate Authority-II for administrative reasons. The Appellate Authority-I will Page 3 of 8 look after all the appeals except to the Department where he works and the Appellate Authority-II will look after the appeals related to Office of the Appellate Authority-I.
4. The Appellate Authority-I has endorsed the decision of CPIO vide letter No.GM/TA/RTI-Appeal/CPIO-318/2013 dated 31.01.2013 and sent the same to the appellant.
5. The appellate authority-II has directed the CPIO to furnish a copy of allotment order with regard to query No.16 vide his letter No.CGM/HR/RTI-Appeal/CPIO-318/2013 dated 31.01.2013. The CPIO, the respondent, had furnished all the relevant information to the appellant vide letter No.PRD/CPIO/318/2012-4 dated 14.02.2013.
6. Due to administrative convenience, Shri S.Sridhar, General Manager(PR) was nominated as Appellate Authority-I in the place of Shri K.Chakravarthy, General Manager/TA.
7. After he took over charge as Appellate Authority-I, Shri S.Sridhar, Genera l Mnager(PR) had reviewed the 1st appeal of Smt. V. Jayanthi and accordingly, he has directed the CPIO to provide all the information available in material form related to the queries raised by the appellant within seven days of issue of the order at free of cost.
8. Accordingly, the CPIO had furnished all the relevant information at free of cost to the appellant and complied the order of 1st appellate authority. The query and the information(duly numbered) provided to the appellant is furnished below:
Sl. Query Document Provided
No
.
1 Copy of the first page of Service Book Information provided at Annexure-I (Page-
(SB) of my husband 1)
2 Details of family members as entered in Copy of the service book in respect of Shri
the SB of my husband V.Veerasamy is furnished (page-3)
3 Copy of the salary slip of my husband for Copy of the salary slip for the month of
the month of October 2012 October, 2012 is furnished at page-6
4 Copy of the charge sheet (probable date Copy of the charge sheet issued to Shri
of charge sheet - 07.02.2011) V.Veerasamy is placed at page-8
5 The copy of the proceedings of the Copy of enquiry proceedings is furnished at
departmental inquiry page 10-122
6 Copy of the daily order sheets of the Copy of daily order sheets is furnished at
aforesaid inquiry page 124-144
7 Copy of the deposition of the listed
Page 4 of 8
witnesses (prosecution witnesses) Information provided for the query No.s 7.8
and 10 at Annesure-II (page 146 to 342)
8 Copy of the deposition of the defence
witnesses
9 Copy of the findings (inquiry report) of Enquiry findings is placed at Annesure - III
the inquiry officer (23 pages)
10 List of documents relied upon to prove Information provided for the query No.s
the charges against my husband 7,8, and 10 at Annesure-II (page 146 to
342)
11 Copy of the II show cause notice and Copy of the provisional show cause notice reply furnished by my husband for the 2nd and objection submitted by Shri show cause notice V.Veerasamy is placed at page 390 to 404.
12 Order passed by the disciplinary The required information is not available in authority which has been concluded as any material form and hence could not be per the letter of DGM/HOHR/Mine-I provided dated 16.05.2012 13 Written brief of the PO and Charged Written brief of the Presenting Officer is Officer, my husband furnished at page 406-413 14 Copy of the medical book details Medical book is available with Shri V Veerasamy and hence information could not be provided 15 Names of nominees in the provident fund Nominees for Gratuity in respect of V and other monetary claims Veerasamy is furnished at page-5.
Nominees for PF in respect of Shri V Veerasamy is furnished at page-7 16 Copy of house allotment letter copy and members residing in the allotted house to my husband Information furnished to the information seeker vide CPIO's letter 17 The name, designation, CPF Nos. Of No.PRD/CPIO/318/2012-03 dated allottees at Door No.D-10 and D- 21.12.12 13,Bacheolars Street, Block-17, Neyveli 18 Details of Education allowance claimed Information furnished to the information by my husband for study of children in seeker vide CPIO's letter Page 5 of 8 Jawahar Schools duly aided by NLC. No.PRD/CPIO/318/2012-05 dt. 21.03.2014
9. During the hearing Shri ICA Doss who is the authorised representative of the appellant had expressed that the CPIO had sent a bunch of papers in the name of information and it was not numbered for which he is finding very difficult to trace out the information for each query.
10. From the above tabulation, it is proved that all the information was furnished to the appellant duly numbered vide re. 2 & 6 cited on page-1 and the statement given by Shri ICA Doss during the hearing, which is reproduced in para 10 become false. Hence it is submitted that the present appeal has become in-fructuous and nothing survives in the matter under dispute.
11. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to reject the Appeal filed by the Appellant herein and thus render justice."
After perusal of submission made by both parties, the Commission concludes that information sought and available on record has already been provided to the appellant. The Commission has also observed that the FAA Shri S.Sridhar, General Manager(PR) had directed the CPIO to provide information, without taking into consideration that the information was indeed, third party information and it is a settled law that such information which has been supplied by a "third party" or pertains to a "third party" and the CPIO decides to disclose the same, in public interest, even then the said disclosure should be in accordance with provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act. The FAA, instead, has directed to provide complete information to the applicant, who is spearheading a private interest -- her own interest -- rather than any public interest. Therefore, order passed by the FAA is contrary to law and non-speaking in nature.
The Gujarat High Court in Reliance Industries Ltd. V. Gujarat State Information (AIR 2007 Guj 203) held, "8. ...it is a duty vested in the Public Information Officer to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the third party, to get his submissions, whether he treats the information as confidential and whether information should be disclosed, if the information is relating to or is supplied by the third party....
.
.
.
10. Speaking order to be passed, when information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party.
...if the information supplied is pertaining to third party, reasons for imparting such information to the applicant ought to be given, otherwise, appellate authority cannot know the mind of Public Page 6 of 8 Information Officer. An appeal is provided under Section 19(2) of the Act, 2005. Third party can prefer an appeal. Reasons reveal the mind of the Lower Authority. Reasons of an order are like soul of an order, without order must be declared ineffective. If the reasons are not given for disclosure of the information relating to third party or supplied by third party, the order can be known as non-speaking order... .
.
.
12. In fact, Public Information officer if discloses the information in violation of the provisions of the Act, 2005 and if the appeal is preferred by the third party and if he succeeds, it is difficult to get back such information from the original applicant. Public Information Officer or any authority under the Act, 2005 if is deciding the disclosure of the information relating to third party or supplied by the third party, which has been treated as confidential by that third party and if any application for stay of the order is applied, it ought to be granted for a reasonable period, so that the third party can prefer First Appeal or Second Appeal." The Commission, therefore, cautions the FAA Shri S. Sridhar, General Manager(PR) to deal with first appeals as per provisions of the Act. The Commission further directed CMD, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Cuddalore, (T.N.) to take note of the manner in which the FAA have dealt with this matter, for deemed fit action. Further, the Commission recommends that a training programme be conducted so that PIOs/FAAs can be made well- acquainted with the manner in which RTI applications are to be dealt with along with the implementation of the provisions of the Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:-
Page 7 of 8Central Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Chief General Manager-(HR)-Head/Group-A, Central Public Information Office, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli-607801. Block-10, NLC Limited, Neyveli-607803.
District - Cuddalore (Tamil Nadu). District - Cuddalore (Tamil Nadu).
Chairman & Managind Director Smt. V. Jayanthi
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, W/o. Mr. V. Veerasamy,
Neyveli-607801. 164 - Bazaar Street,
District - Cuddalore (Tamil Nadu). Kullanchavadi, Kurinjipadi TK,
District - Cuddalore-607301 (T.N.).
Page 8 of 8