Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 11 January, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BARCM/A/2021/655248
CIC/BARCM/A/2021/663568
CIC/BARCM/A/2021/663571
CIC/BARCM/A/2021/663579
CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/655404
CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/663154
Shri Pankaj Kumar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
2. Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Date of Hearing : 10.01.2023
Date of Decision : 11.01.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
655248 26.08.2021 23.09.2021 23.09.2021 26.10.2021 22.11.2021
663568 25.09.2021 22.10.2021 14.11.2021 28.12.2021 31.12.2021
663571 30.09.2021 29.10.2021 14.11.2021 28.12.2021 31.12.2021
663579 29.09.2021 28.10.2021 27.11.2021 30.12.2021 31.12.2021
655404 26.08.2021 28.09.2021 30.09.2021 - 23.11.2021
663154 29.09.2021 08.11.2021 13.11.2021 21.12.2021 29.12.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/BARCM/A/2021/655248 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 26.08.2021 and the CPIO/Chief Administrative Officer, BARC, vide letter dated 23.09.2021 replied as under:-Page 1 of 15 Page 2 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated23.09.2021. The FAA/Actg. Controller, BARC, vide order dated 26.10.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide email dated 09.01.2023 wherein he inter alia stated that information on points 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 should be provided by the CPIO, BARC.
A written submission was also received from the PIO and CAO (A), BARC, vide letter dated 04.01.2023, the relevant of which is as under:
(2) CIC/BARCM/A/2021/663568 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.09.2021 and the CPIO/Chief Administrative Officer, BARC, vide letter dated 22.10.2021 replied as under:-Page 3 of 15 Page 4 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2021. The FAA/Actg. Controller, BARC, vide order dated 28.12.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was received from the Appellant vide email dated 09.01.2023 wherein he stated that information on all the 20 points should be provided by the CPIO.
A written submission was also received from the PIO and CAO (A), BARC, vide letter dated 04.01.2023, the relevant of which is as under:
Page 5 of 15(3) CIC/BARCM/A/2021/663571 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 30.09.2021 and the CPIO/Chief Administrative Officer, BARC, vide letter dated 29.10.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2021. The FAA/Actg. Controller, BARC, vide order dated 28.12.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was received from the Appellant vide email dated 09.01.2023 wherein he stated that information on points A to J should be provided. He further stated that he was seeking information regarding promotion interview under Merit Promotion Scheme from the DAE/ BARC and there should be a guideline/ circular in this regard. Furthermore, his queries were not in the nature of seeking reasons, clarifications and asking questions like why, what, whether, etc. A written submission was also received from the PIO and CAO (A), BARC vide letter dated 08.01.2023 the relevant extract of which is as under:
Page 6 of 15(4) CIC/BARCM/A/2021/663579 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 29.09.2021 and the CPIO/Chief Administrative Officer, BARC, vide letter dated 28.10.2021 replied as under:-Page 7 of 15 Page 8 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2021. The FAA/Actg. Controller, BARC, vide order dated 30.12.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 09.01.2023 wherein it was inter alia requested that a direction be given to the CPIO to provide information on points 3,4, 6, 7,7 8. 9, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
A written submission was also received from the PIO and CAO (A), BARC vide letter dated 08.01.2023 the relevant extract of which is as under:
Page 9 of 15(5) CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/655404 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 26.08.2021 and the CPIO Nuclear Power Corporation of India, vide letter dated 28.09.2021 furnished the reply received from CPIO/Manager (HR-T), NPCIL, which stated as under:-Page 10 of 15 Page 11 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2021 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant ant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was received from the Appellant vide email dated 09.01.2023 wherein it was inter alia stated that information on points E, F and screening report for 2014 should be provide provided by CPIO, BARC.
Another written submission was received from the CPIO and Manager (Legal), NPCIL, Narora vide letter dated 04.01.2023 which has been taken into record.
(6) CIC/ CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/663154 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 29.09.2021.2021 and the CPIO, CPIO Nuclear Power Corporationon of India, vide letter dated 08.11 08.11.2021 .2021 furnished the reply received from CPIO/Manager, NPCIL, wh wherein erein the following was stated:-
Page 12 of 15 Page 13 of 15Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.11.2021.. The FAA/ FAA/AD, NPCIL, vide order dated 21.12.2021 21.12 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide email dated
09.01.2023 wherein he stated that his submission was same as his second appeal.
A written submission was also received from the CPIO and Manager (Legal), NPCIL, Narora vide letter dated 04.01.2023 which has been taken on record.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
The Respondent represented by Shri B V Balaji, CPIO CPIO,, BARC; Shri Bharat Bhushan Upadhyay, CPIO PIO and Manager, NPCIL, Narora; Shri Ramakrishna, DGM (HR), NPCIL, Mumbai and Smt Shradha Gupta, APIO and Sr Manager (HR), NPCIL, Mumbai participated in the hearing through video conference. The Respondents stated that point wise information as per available records was provided to the Appellant in all the matters. On being queried by the Commission in CIC/BARCM/A/2021/66357, if any promotion related guidelines/ circulars exists on record, Shri Balaji stated that only Promotion norms of 2022 for Scientific ntific and Technical Personnel are available on their webs website ite and the weblink was given in their written submission dated 08.01.2023.Page 14 of 15
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been given since the information held and available with the public authorities and permissible for disclosure as per the RTI Act has been provided by the Respondents. The Commission also notes that similar issues have been heard and adjudicated in CIC/NPCOI/A/2019/635642; CIC/NPCOI/A/2019/645096; CIC/NPCOI/A/2019/635641 and CIC/BARCM/A/2019/635438; CIC/BARCM/A/2019/640014; CIC/BARCM/A/2019/640027; and CIC/BARCM/A/2019/646766, decided on 04.05.2021. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matters. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeals stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 15 of 15