Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shweta Singh vs Ordnance Factory Board on 6 March, 2020

                               के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/152106

Shweta Singh                                                  ....अपीलकता/Appellant
                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO,
Ordnance Factory Board,
Ayudh Bhawan,
10 - A, S K Bose Road,
Kolkata - 700001.                                         ... ितवादीगण /Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   10/03/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   11/04/2018
First appeal filed on             :   13/05/2018
First Appellate Authority order   :   24/05/2018
Second Appeal dated               :   18/08/2018
Date of Hearing                   :   04/03/2020
Date of Decision                  :   04/03/2020

            lwpuk vk;qDr              :       fnO; izdk"k flUgk
   INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA

Information sought

:

The Appellant sought information through 5 points in the context of letter no. 2982/LDCE/CM(T&NT)/VIG/PER/NG dated 21.10.2014 in terms of action taken against the concerned Chargemen.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
1
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Kumar Ram Krishan, Dy. Director & CPIO, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata present through VC.
Appellant stated that the information sought pertains to a letter dated 21.10.2014 of OFB, vide which instructions were issued to all factories under OFB that the Diploma in Engineering acquired through distance mode issued by one Janardhan Vidyapeeth University is not a valid diploma as it does not have AICTE accreditation. That, candidates possessing the said diploma were promoted to the post of Chargeman (Tech.) and the averred letter sought to cancel/revert these promotions as these candidates were deemed to be not fulfilling the eligibility criterion for the said post.

CPIO submitted that the candidates whose promotion has been reverted have approached various Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) benches across the country and stayed the reversion, and on an appeal against the same filed by OFB with the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the case has been remanded back to Madras bench of CAT, thus the subject matter is sub judice. He furthermore submitted that as such the information sought in the RTI Application is extremely cryptic and unspecific and therefore a suitable reply was provided to the Appellant.

Appellant interjected at this point to state that she has sought to know the action taken details on the averred letter dated 21.10.2014.

Commission remarked upon perusal of facts on record that even as Appellant has not framed the queries in the RTI Application properly she has raised an issue concerning the interest of a larger community. It was thus deemed appropriate to allow a liberal interpretation of the contents of the RTI Application which primarily seeks to know the eventual fate of the averred letter in terms of what subsequent action has been taken in the matter.

As regards, the sub judice status of the case brought out by the CPIO, Commission observes that there is no exemption to disclosure of information under RTI Act on the grounds of a matter being sub judice.

2

File No : CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/152106 Decision In view of the hearing proceedings, Commission directs the CPIO to provide complete available and relevant copy of documents pertaining to the action taken on letter no. 2982/LDCE/CM(T&NT)/VIG/PER/NG dated 21.10.2014 as per the records of OFB, Kolkata. The said information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                        Divya Prakash Sinha ( द    काश िस हा )
                                      Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )

Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत        त)


Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
 दनांक / Date




                                       3