Central Information Commission
Pawan Das vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 14 June, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AIIMS/A/2019/133826
CIC/AIIMS/A/2019/133827
CIC/AIIMS/A/2019/133828
Shri Pawan Das ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, AIIMS, Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Sh. Sunder Lal Chamoli - AO;
Sh. Joginder Kumar and Sh. Mahesh Chand -
DGM/HR/CPIO, BECIL
Date of Hearing : 14.06.2021
Date of Decision : 14.06.2021
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
133826 18.03.2019 28.03.2019 29.05.2019 04.06.2019 15.07.2019
&
20.04.2019
133827 22.03.2019 20.04.2019 07.06.2019 11.06.2019 15.07.2019
133828 07.01.2019 18.02.2019 05.04.2019 15.05.2019 15.07.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/AIIMS/A/2019/133826 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated18.03.2019 seeking action taken report, dairy number, daily progress report, action taken report and other related information on his 04 complaints dated 03.05.2018, 28.05.2018, 22.10.2018 and 27.11.2018.Page 1 of 6
The Nodal CPIO/Administrative Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi vide letter dated 28.03.2019 transferred the RTI application to Shri Sunder Lal Chamoli, Administrative Officer/PIO, Complaints Section, AIIMS, New Delhi.
The CPIO/Administrative Officer, Complaints Section, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.04.2019 furnished point wise information to the Appellant. The Appellant was provided a reply from the Department of Store Section which is also found attached with the Second Appeal, wherein the lapses on the part of the Appellant has been discussed in details, which were instrumental in his termination from service.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.05.2019. The FAA, Complaints Section, vide order dated 04.06.2019 stated that the information available with the PIO has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.04.2019.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and Appellant contended that he had sought information from the Office of the Director, AIIMS while response had been provided by the Complaints Section. Hence, accurate information has not been made available in response to his queries. Respondent present during hearing stated that the Appellant has been provided information as available on record, vide reply dated 20.04.2019.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case at hand, it is noted that the RTI Application was filed before the O/o Director, AIIMS but since the queries related to four complaints filed by the Appellant, hence the substantive response was provided by the Complaints Section. On perusal of the reply dated 20.04.2019, it is noted that queries number 2 and 4 have been replied in the same maner, though the queries 2 and 4 are about two different complaints dated 28.05.2018 and 27.11.2018. Thus, the Commission finds the PIO's reply dated 20.04.2019 inadequate and not complete.
Accordingly, the PIO is hereby directed to furnish a revised and accurate reply with respect to the 04 complaints dated 03.05.2018, 28.05.2018, 22.10.2018 and 27.11.2018 filed by the Appellant. The revised reply shall be provided to the Appellant within six weeks of receipt of this order, taking necessary assistance under section 5(4) of the RTI Act, if required. A compliance report in this regard shall be submitted by the PIO/Complaints Section, before the Commission by 31.07.2021.
Page 2 of 6(2) CIC/AIIMS/A/2019/133827 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated22.03.2019 seeking information on 10 points, some of which are as follows:-
Etc. The Nodal CPIO, AIIMS, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.04.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.06.2019. The FAA vide order dated 11.06.2019 upheld the CPIO's reply on point nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and in response to point nos. 1, 4, 5, Page 3 of 6 6 transferred the RTI application to M/s Broadcast Engineering Consultant India Limited (BECIL).
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and averments placed forth by the Appellant reveal that the instant appeal is a consequence of his claim that he has not been furnished a response to his queries number 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Decision Perusal of records of the Second Appeal does not indicate any satisfactory reply from the Respondent from Stores section of the Hospital addressing the specific queries number 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. Hence, in the interest of justice, the Respondent/Stores Section, AIIMS is hereby directed to furnish a succinct and accurate reply with respect to the queries number queries number 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 raised by the Appellant in his RTI Application. The revised reply shall be provided to the Appellant within six weeks of receipt of this order, and compliance thereof shall be reported before the Commission by 31.07.2021.
(3) CIC/AIIMS/A/2019/133828 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2019 seeking information on 18 points, some of which are as follows:-
Page 4 of 6Etc. The CPIO/Administrative Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi vide letter dated 18.02.2019 reply against queries 1-3, 7, 8-10, 13-14. The RTI application was transferred to CPIO, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited [BECIL] and CPIO, ACT/SC&ST for answering the remaining queries.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.04.2019. The FAA vide order dated 15.05.2019 referred to the reply already furnished by the PIO and held as under:-
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 Prof. in charge, Recruitment Cell, AIIMS vide letter dated 10.06.2021, reiterating the above facts. A response dated 06.05.2019 from BECIL is found attached with the submission, whereby disclosure of information has been denied by the PIO/BECIL-Shri Mahesh Page 5 of 6 Chand stating that the matter of the Appellant is sub judice and hence no information can be provided to him.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and Appellant stated that information held by the Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited [BECIL] has been denied to him, in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The PIO, BECIL on the other hand contended that information held by them has been furnished to the Appellant, though no document has been placed on record so far by the PIO, BECIL. The PIO submitted that he will place the relevant reply on record during the course of the day.
Decision:
The Commission granted time to the Respondent-PIO, BECIL to submit relevant documents corroborating his contention that information had been furnished to the Appellant. However, no such document has been placed on record. The only document from BECIL which is found on record is a letter dated 06.05.2019, attached with the submission dated 10.06.2021 received from Dr. Sanjay Kumar Arya, whereby information has been denied owing to the pendency of the Appellant's case in court. In the absence of any restraint order from the Court, the denial of information by PIO, BECIL-Shri Mahesh Chand is legally untenable and therefore the reply dated 06.05.2019 is set aside.
The PIO, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited [BECIL] - Shri Mahesh Chand is hereby directed to furnish an accurate reply containing responses to the queries 4-6, 11,15-18 and part information against query no. 7, which had been transferred by PIO, Recruitment Cell, AIIMS to PIO, BECIL. The complete reply shall be provided to the Appellant within six weeks of receipt of this order, and compliance thereof shall be reported by PIO, BECIL before the Commission by 31.07.2021.
The appeals are thus disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (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 6 of 6