Central Information Commission
Sachin Mehrotra vs Nbri,Lucknow on 31 December, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/NBRIL/A/2020/685910
In the matter of:
Sachin Mehrotra
... Appellant
VS
CPIO (Stores & Purchases)
CSIR - National Botanical Research Institute
Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow - 226 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 15/02/2020 CPIO replied on : 11/03/2020 First appeal filed on : 11/04/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 19/06/2020 Second Appeal dated : 17/09/2020 Date of Hearing : 30/12/2021 Date of Decision : 30/12/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Sudhanshu, Section Officer and CPIO; Prasenjit Mitra, Stores and Purchase officer and CPIO; present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide a copy of the joining memo issued by CSIR-NBRI in r/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, SPO, CSIR-NBRI while he joined as SPO at NBRI.
2. Provide a copy of the joining memo issued by CSIR-NBRI in r/o Sh. Ram Badal, Ex-SO(S&P), CSIR-NBRI while he joined as SO(S&P) at NBRI.
3. Provide a copy of the joining memo issued by CSIR-NBRI in r/o Prof. S.K. Barik, Director, CSIR-NBRI/ Reviewing Officer, while he joined as Director in NBRI, Lucknow.1
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was asked to demonstrate any larger public interest in this case. He admitted that information relates to third parties but is not personal. He argued that the joining report of a public servant is not personal. He pressed for joining dates of third parties in case joining memo cannot be given. The CPIO (Admin) agreed to provide joining dates of third parties but claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(j) for the joining report.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the CPIO (Stores and Purchase) rejected the RTI application vide letter dated 11.03.2020 and denied the information stating that information sought is personal information related to other employees and therefore cannot be given u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and also held that no larger public interest was seen in disclosure of information sought by the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 19.06.2020 disposed of the first appeal and held that the information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. The information seeker and the provider being part of the same system should work together for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction. They ought to exercise restraints in misusing the Act, lest they should dilute the mandate of RTI Act to empower the common man. The Commission observed that the CPIO (Stores and Purchase) had rightly denied the information sought u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant also could not demonstrate any larger public interest in this case. However, the FAA failed to treat the applicant as per the RTI Act and denied information on the wrong pretext of being an employee of the organization. Be that as it may, as the CPIO (Admin) agreed to provide the joining dates, limited relief is granted to the appellant.2
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO (Admin) shall provide the joining dates to the appellant as discussed during the hearing within 7 days from the receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3