Central Information Commission
K S Sindhu vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 4 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/BSNLD/A/2019/603415
In the matter of:
K S Sindhu
... Appellant
VS
DGM(ADMN) & CPIO,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL),
Office of the Principal General Manager,
BSNL Bhavan, Uppalam Road, Statue,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 19/11/2018 CPIO replied on : 17/12/2018 First appeal filed on : Date not mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : 21/01/2019 Second Appeal dated : 16/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 03/12/2020 Date of Decision : 03/12/2020 The following were present: Appellant : Present over VC
Respondent: Ms Minimoll, Deputy General Manager & CPIO, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the information/orders/communications, if any, with regard to implementation of dies non to Smt K S Sindhu, AGM.
2. Provide a copy of the file note of DGM(CFA.OP)/CONF/2016-17 dated 19/06/2018 recommending dies non and comments of various officers and their recommendations and approval for implementing dies non to Smt. KS Sindhu, AGM.1
3. Provide a copy of absentee statement of Smt. KS Sindhu, having HR No. 199104924, given by the controlling officer for the month of May and June, 2018.
4. Provide a copy of intimation letter/communication/orders etc issued to Smt K S Sindhu regarding implementation of dies non.
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information citing section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as no justification for the same has been provided.
The CPIO submitted that since the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble CAT, the information cannot be disclosed being exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO who had denied the desired information while claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant in her recent written submissions has given the background of her case alongwith her points of contention and the Commission is in agreement with her submissions to the extent that the CPIO in his reply has merely claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without justifying its applicability. It was incumbent upon the CPIO to justify as to how the disclosure of this information will hamper the process of investigation. It is to be noted by the CPIO that merely claiming an exemption under Section 8 is not enough to absolve a CPIO from performing the duties cast upon him under the RTI Act. It is relevant to mention here that in order to deny information under any of the exemption clauses mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the respondent is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed.
On a query to the CPIO as to what matter is pending for investigation and the status of that matter, she submitted that the appellant had filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal covering the same issue and the 2 same is still pending adjudication. She contended that since the matter is sub- judice and pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble CAT, parting with information at this stage would jeopardize the stand of the respondents as well as the evidence/arguments used by them to field the case .
The Commission noted that even though some case is pending adjudication before the Central Administrative Tribunal, however, that in itself does not mean that the information cannot be disclosed, until and unless the CPIO provides a proper justification as to how the process of investigation would be impeded. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide a proper justification as to how the information sought under points no. 1, 2 & 10 are covered u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
For points no 3, 4, 5, 6 & 13, the Commission finds that the exemption claimed by the CPIO is totally misplaced as on these points the appellant had sought very general and basic information for e.g. she had sought a copy of her absentee statement for the month of May and June, 2018, a copy of the intimation letter/communication/order etc issued to her regarding implementation of dies non, etc and disclosure of such information would in no way impede the process of any investigation. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide complete information on these points to the appellant. With regard to points no. 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12, no relief can be given as these queries are not strictly covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant on points no. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 13 of the RTI application. With regard to points no. 1, 2 & 10, the CPIO is directed to re-visit these points and provide a suitable reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act and in case the CPIO still maintains the earlier reply that the information is covered u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, a proper justification should be given to the appellant. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4