Central Information Commission
P S Negi vs Csio,Chandigarh on 20 July, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/CSIOC/A/2019/642925
In the matter of:
P S Negi
... Appellant
VS
Public Information Officer,
CSIR- Central Scientific Instruments Organisation,
Sector 30-C, Chandigarh-160030
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 02/04/2019 CPIO replied on : 03/05/2019 First appeal filed on : 03/05/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 07/06/2019 Second Appeal dated : 14/06/2019 Date of Hearing : 16/07/2020 Date of Decision : 16/07/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Heard over phone
Respondent: Shri Harish, Section Officer & deemed PIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information / documents:
1. Copy of the letter No. CSIO/PTID/Per/93-94/432 dated 19/01/1994.
2. Copy of the action taken report and file noting with reference to CSIR's letter bearing No. 17(65)/P-42(A)/12/90-PPS dated 19/09/1994.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided misleading and incomplete information.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that incomplete information was provided to him as at Page 46/N of the noting which was provided to him, it was recorded that a note has been sent to the Chairman and further on the same note, the Chairman, Personnel Committee recorded that a meeting may be called on 08.11.1994 at 3.30 P.M. Venue -CoA's Office. Both these documents are a part of the main file, however, these were not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that the file wherein the case of the appellant has been dealt with since the 90s is more than two decades old and the file bears page numbers in serial order. As per this file on 02.11.1994, the Chairman, Personnel Committee (PC) had fixed the meeting on 08.11.1994 but there is no reference that a meeting of the Personnel Committee (PC) was actually held on 08.11.94 or on a subsequent date. The appellant is insisting to provide him a copy of the recommendation of the PC meeting. As per the file, there is no reference that a meeting of the P C was actually held on 08.11.94 or on any subsequent date &the allegation of the appellant is baseless. The documents pertaining to the year 1994 sought by him under point (b) are not available in the concerned file, as had already been informed to the appellant in reply to his 1st appeal dated 03.05.2019. All the available documents/information, as found in the concerned file, were supplied to him in response to his RTI application dated 02.04.2019 and First Appeal dated 03.05.2019. However, efforts were again made but the requisite documents have not been found in the file. The PIOs and deemed PIOs have made sincere efforts to provide the information to the extent available. Since, no specific records were available in more than two decades old file, no further information can be provided to the appellant.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant is not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO as according to him, the noting sheet containing the action points recommended by the Personnel Committee on 08.11.1994 were deliberately removed by the then CSIO, Admn. or no follow-up action was taken on these CSIR orders deliberately.2
The CPIO submitted that the allegations levelled by the appellant are baseless and they have put their best efforts to search for the desired information but since the records are more than 20 years old, whatever information was available on the relevant file, the same was provided to the appellant. He also submitted that after receipt of the CIC's hearing notice, the records were again checked but no new information could be found and hence there is no additional information that can be supplied to the appellant at present.
The Commission concurs with the submissions of the CPIO, as can be seen from the records that whatever information was available with the respondent authority, the same was provided to the appellant, both by the CPIO and the FAA.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3