Central Information Commission
Shri Sheo Purari Singh vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization ... on 10 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000699
Dated, the 10th November, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Sheo Purari Singh
Respondents : Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO)
Pursuant to Commission's notice dated 14.10.2009, this matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing (VC) on 09.11.2009. Both parties were present at NIC VC facility at Nagpur. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 15.06.2009, requested the following information in regard to CMPF Account No.A/299413 in the name of Shri Sheo Purari Singh, S/o Late Kishun Singh:-
"A. Employer's & Employee's Contribution deposited with CMPF Regional Office, Nagpur as on 31.03.2008.
B. Rate of interest and calculation upto 31.03.2008.
C. The service of Shri Sheo Purari Singh was ceased in August, 2007. Why did his CMPF and Pension not yet released. Is it correct as per prevailing rules?"
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 24.06.2009, declined to disclose the above information to the appellant on the ground that since the matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, he had received directions from the CMPF Commissioner, Dhanbad not to provide any information related to the above-mentioned PF Account to the appellant.
4. Appellate Authority upheld CPIO's reply as ".....direction from the Commissioner, CMPFO and Head of Public Authority, CMPFO, whose decision in such matter is deemed to be final as per CMPF Scheme, 1948."
5. During hearing, the Appellate Authority, Shri Raghunandan Rao, Joint Commissioner, CMPFO submitted that the information requested AT-10112009-06.doc Page 1 of 4 by the appellant at items A and B above was once provided to the appellant (in response to appellant's earlier RTI-application) through the Appellate Authority's order dated 31.10.2007 for the period till 31.03.2006. A decision was thereafter taken by the CMPF Commissioner not to disclose any further information to the appellant as regards the above CMPF Account.
6. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the AA and the third-party, viz. the Chief Vigilance Officer, Coal India Limited, in his written- submission before the Commission, are that the present appellant, who was an employee of the Coal India Limited since 1965 ⎯ was removed from service by the Chairman, Coal India Limited in August, 2007 on the established charge that he (appellant) entered the service of the public authority fraudulently by impersonating another worker, viz. Sheopurari Singh, son of Shri Keshari Singh, who was appointed as Mazdoor, Category-I in 1963. Subsequently, appellant herein had appealed against the Chairman's order before the Board of Directors, Coal India Limited, but the Board rejected the appeal and upheld the order of his removal from service. Thereafter, appellant filed a writ petition No.4475/2007 at High Court of Judicature, Bombay, Nagpur Bench challenging his removal from service. The matter is presently sub-judice before the Court.
7. AA further submitted that, it is in this context that the Commissioner, CMPFO issued directions dated 12.03.2008 to the Regional Commissioner, CMPFO, Nagpur not to disclose any information in respect of the above-mentioned CMPF Account No. to the appellant. This communication read as follows:-
"Please refer to your office letter No.CPF/NGP/Misc/Records/ Nagpur Area/73 dated 12.02.2008 on the subject cited above. The dismissed employee Shri Sheo Purari Singh was an impersonator and hence he has no legal claim on the PF deposits.
2. The dismissed employee had filed a writ petition No.4475/2007 at High Court of Judicature, Mumbai, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur against order of removal from service vide No.CIL/VIG/VO-74(H)/696 dated 08/09.08.2007 issued by Chairman, CIL, who is the Appointing Authority, wherein he has also prayed for release of CMPF and other funds. Since the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Court, the details of the PF deposits cannot be given to him."
AT-10112009-06.doc Page 2 of 4 FINDINGS AND REASONING:
8. From a perusal of the documents submitted before me by both parties, it is noted that,
(a) the CPIO and the Appellate Authority had based their decisions to decline the disclosure to the appellant, on the directives issued by the Commissioner, CMPFO, who in-turn had taken the plea that since the matter was sub-judice before a Court, no information need be disclosed to the appellant.
(b) the information requested by the appellant in his present RTI-application dated 15.06.2009 (at Sl.Nos.A and B) is not fully covered by the information supplied to him earlier by the AA, through his order dated 30.10.2007 (in response to appellant's earlier RTI-application), because what the appellant has asked for is Account Balance as on 31.03.2008, but what was supplied to him earlier was Account Balance as on 31.03.2006.
(c) the third-party's contention that since the matter is presently sub-judice before a Court, Section 8(1)(h) is attracted is completely flawed for the reason that the matter is presently before the Court in writ-petition filed by the appellant and that there was no 'onus to prove guilt' resting on the public authority as may be the case in any C.P.C. or Cr.P.C. proceeding.
DECISION:
9. As regards 8(a) above, it has been the consistent view of the Commission that a matter being sub-judice does not itself qualify to be exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. Therefore, the plea taken by the AA that the "CMPF Commissioner's decision in such matter is deemed to be final as per CMPF Scheme, 1948" is incongruent with the scheme of RTI Act, which commends disclosure of all such information which are not covered by its exemption-Sections.
10. As noted at 8(b) above, since the Appellate Authority had no objection in disclosing to the appellant the Account Balance as on 31.03.2006, he should have no problem in disclosing the same information as on 31.03.2008 since their preliminary objection has now AT-10112009-06.doc Page 3 of 4 been overruled by the Commission at para 9 above. It is, therefore, directed that the Account Balance as on 31.03.2008 in respect of the above-mentioned CMPF Account Number shall be communicated to the appellant within 3 weeks of the receipt of this order. CPIO's concern that the appellant may use this information as evidence in his favour in the case before the High Court, can be met by making it clear that the information given was without prejudice to the respondents' position in the case in the High Court or any judicial proceeding.
11. As regards item 'C' of appellant's RTI-application, there shall be no disclosure obligation on the respondents as it fails to qualify to be a proper request for information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
12. Appeal disposed of with the above directions.
13. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-10112009-06.doc Page 4 of 4