Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vinay Kumar (Advocate) vs Csir Hqrs.,New Delhi on 6 June, 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/CSIRD/A/2023/112322

Shri VINAY KUMAR                                           ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                   ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
CSIR Hqrs., New Delhi

Date of Hearing                       :   04.06.2024
Date of Decision                      :   04.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner        :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :       26.09.2022
PIO replied on                    :       29.11.2022
First Appeal filed on             :       04.01.2023
First Appellate Order on          :       22.02.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :       17.03.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-

"i) Kindly intimate the action taken on the aforesaid FFC Report since 16.01.2020 till 27.02.2020, with copy of relevant documents reflecting the same.

ii) Kindly provide information whether the above mentioned FFC Report was sent/intimated to CVC, if yes then please provide the date and reference no.

iii) Kindly provide the information whether the complaint of Dr. S. Swarupa Tripathy to the Director General, CSIR dated 09.05.2016 (signed on 25.05.2016) was sent/intimated to CVC at any point of time through Vigilance Department of CSIR-HQ.

iv) Kindly provide information whether the information regarding complaints of misconduct received in the Office of CSIR, HQ is sent/intimated to CVC, if yes, the frequency of such intimation, i.e. monthly, half yearly or yearly.

Further, kindly provide the list of complaints sent/intimated to CVC in the months of January, February and March 2020.

v) Kindly provide the list of personnel, with Name & designation, working in the Vigilance Section of CSIR, Headquarters during 16.01.2020 to 27.02.2020.

vi) Kindly intimate Reasons in detail for keeping the FFC report lying from 16.01.2020 to 29.12.2021 (as reflected in letter no. 17-01(12)/22/2022-HR- III, dated 08.02.2022 to CSIR-NPL)"

The CPIO vide letter dated 29.11.2022 replied as under:-

"1-2. The lab was asked to submit the copy of SIB report pertaining to recommendations made for the aforesaid case for our records. The same hasn't been received till date.

3. प्रभाग में उपलब्ध रिकॉर्ड के अनुसाि कथित पत्र प्राप्त नह ीं हुआ है ।

4. आपके द्वािा माींगी गयी सूचना विथनर्दड ष्ट (Specific) नह ीं है ।

5. Sought information is exernpted under 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005.

6. यह सूचना आिट आई एक्ट 2005 के अींतगडत नह ीं आती।

7. The copies of relevant portion of the minutes of the 193rd meeting of GB are enclosed."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.01.2023. FAA vide order dated 22.02.2023 stated as under :

1 and 2: यह उल्लेखित है र्क मामला प्रशासथनक िा इसथलए उक्त मामले को आिश्यक कायडिाह हे तु सीएसआईआि-प्रशासन को भेज र्दया गया िा। साि ह यह बताया जाता है र्क सतकडता प्रभाग को उक्त मामले में सीिीसी से सलाह हुने के सम्बन्ध में सीएसआईआि - प्रशासन में कोई अनुिोध प्राप्त नह हुआ है । 3, 4 and 6 CPIO के पत्र सींखयााः सीएसआईआिएच/आि/पी/23/00002 र्दनाींक 29.11.2022 के द्वािा आपको पूिड में उपलब्ध किाई गई सूचना को पुनाः दोहिाते है ।

वबींद ु 5 पि माींगी गयी सूचना सींलग्न है ।

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 29.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate and Mr Ashish Shukla, Advocate- Authorised representatives of the Appellant -participated in the hearing.

Respondent: Ms. Vandana D Singh, US Adv. Vijay Kumar stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to the Appellant till date. He stated that the Ms. S. Swarupa Tripathy had made three complaints and information sought relates to her complaints. He stated that the Appellant has sought information related to action taken on the report of fact finding committee on the issue of deliberate generation of BND Page 2 of 4 certificates which was forwarded to the CVO. He stated that credit of research work of the Dr. S. Swarupa Tripathy has been given to some other person and information sought is essential for her complaints/cases.

The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant. She further stated that as per latest status received from the concerned section the SIB report has been received from CSIR-NPL and both the involved scientist have been examined and a report has been submitted to Director NPL in this regard.

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 Appellant, 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.

Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that as submitted by the PIO SIB report has been received from CSIR-NPL. Accordingly, the Commission directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised fresh reply with respect to point No. 1 and 2 of instant RTI Application to the Appellant along with necessary annexures if any, as available in their records subject to submission of consent or authority letter from Dr. S. Swarupa Tripathy by the Appellant. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant and same must be redacted under section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 prior to the said disclosure.

The said direction of the Commission must be complied within two weeks from the date of receipt of aforementioned consent/authority letter from the Appellant and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.

As regards the other points of the RTI Application 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 giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. 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 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)