Central Information Commission
Debashish Ghosh vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 23 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2023/148502.
Shri Debashish Ghosh. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Department of Atomic Energy.
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024
Date of Decision : 21.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.10.2023
PIO replied on : 07.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 16.10.2023
First Appellate Order on : 29.11.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Has DAE issued letter/communication to any of its constituent PSE/PSU, under DAE's administrative control, to withhold payment of Performance Related Pay (PRP) payable as per the extant guidelines of Department of Public Enterprise to its officers (otherwise eligible) who have ongoing vigilance proceedings against them on the date of payrnent of PRP, for the related financial year. If yes, copy of the said letter/communication may be provided.
2. If 1 above, is affirmative, then does the said letter/communication also prohibits making necessary provisions in accounts for the amount of withhold PRP for such officer(s) for the relevant financial year(s).
3. If 1 above, is affirmative, then do the said letter/communication also elaborates how the withhold PRP shall be paid if such officer(s) is exonerated after the conclusion of the vigilance proceedings, later on.
4. If 1 above is affirmative, then do the said letter/communication list out any exception for officer (s) who can be paid PRP even if they have ongoing vigilance proceedings against then on the date of payment of PRP."Page 1 of 3
The CPIO, Under Secretary (PSU) vide letter dated 07.11.2023 replied as under:-
"1. DAE vide letter dated 29.08.2017 endorsed a copy of the DPE OM No. W- 02/0028/2017-DPE(WC)-GL-XIII/17 dated 03.08.2017 to ECIL/UCIL/IREL for information & necessary action Para-11 of the said DPE OM stipulates about the PRP The above O.M. dated 03.08.2017 is available on DPE website. The DAE endorsement dated provided herewith. 29.08.2017 IS As regards point no. 2,3 and 4, the said does not constitute as information as envisaged under section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.10.2023. The FAA, Director (I&M) vide order dated 29.11.2023 stated as under:-
"2. CPIO, DAE vide his letter No. 4/5(56)/2023-PSU/14724 dated 07.11.2023 has furnished the reply to Shri Debashish Ghosh.
3. Not fully satisfied with the reply furnished by the CPIO, DAE, the Appellant has preferred an appeal dated 09.11.2023 before the Appellate Authority.
4. The undersigned has gone through the information sought for in the RTI application dated 16.10.2023 of Shri Debashish Ghosh, the reply of CPIO, DAE vide letter dated 07.11.2023 and the present appeal dated 09.11.2023 of Shri Debashish Ghosh.
5. Keeping in view the spirit of RTI Act and the said appeal dated 09.11.2023, it is stated that information provided by CPIO, DAE vide his letter dated 07.11.2023 is in order. Accordingly, the first appeal dated 09.11.2023 received from Shri Debashish Ghosh stands disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 12.08.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Abhilash Kidave, US- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him by the PIO. He further stated that the reply furnished by the PIO is misleading and incorrect. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further stated that the queries Page 2 of 3 raised by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is clarificatory and hypothetical in nature.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter Appeal is disposed of 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)