Central Information Commission
Priyanka Patel vs Central Ground Water Board on 10 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CGWBD/A/2022/649594
PRIYANKA PATEL ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Ground Water Board, North
Central Chhattisgarh Region, RTI Cell,
2nd Floor, LK Corporates Tower, Dhamtari
Road, Dumartarai, Raipur-492015, Chhattisgarh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/07/2023
Date of Decision : 03/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 19/04/2022
First appeal filed on : 24/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 23/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Subject regarding refund of amount (rupees 59,136) deducted during technical resignation from the post of Senior technical assistant (hydrogeology) dated 6 August 2021.
1. Sir, here I have attached the attachment with reference to which I was asked to deposit my one-month salary to the department before relieving. But DOM has notified that in case of technical resignation, OM NO. 28020/1/2010- Estt. Dated 17.08.2016 regarding Lien/Technical resignation, must be used.
2.Since there is no mention of one month notice period in it. Therefore, I request you to kindly refund my salary amount.
3.Since no proper response received from department, hereby filing RTI. Enclosure:
of all the documents, including NOC, RTI reply copy etc."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.04.2022 stating as under:
"An amount of Rs-59136/- (Salary and DA) has been deposited as per the letter No-4- 6791/2020-Sci. Estt-111 of CGWB CHQ Faridabad dated 30.07.2021. A copy of the above-mentioned letter is also attached."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 23.05.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Dr Rajnikant Sharma, Scientist C & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant narrated the genesis of instant RTI Application by placing reliance on the contents of her instant Appeal, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference -2
"1. I am currently a Range Forest Officer trainee at the Himachal Pradesh Forest Academy, Sundarnagar, Dist. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. I have been deputed for this training by the State of Uttar Pradesh after my selection through its Public Service Commission.
2. Prior to this training, since 18.02.2020, I used to work as a Senior Technical Assistant (Hydrogeology) Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), North Central Chhattisgarh Region, Raipur, which comes under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt.
of India.
3. But before joining CGWB, I had appeared for the written examination for this position in 2017.
4. On qualifying the written examination, I was called for the personal interview on 28.08.2020. That time I sought permission from CGWB if I could face the interview and the authority was kind enough to give me a no objection certificate (annexure 1).
5. On 22.07.2021, I received a letter from the Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh informing me that I finally qualified for the position and that I had to undergo a training with effect from 09.08.2021 (Annexure II). On the same day, I informed CGWB about it and requested for relieving me from my duties w.e.f. 06.08.2021 (Annexure III).
6. I tendered my technical resignation from my position on 27.07.2021 to be relieved w.e.f. 06.08.2021 (Annexure IV)
7. On 03.08.2021, I received my actual appointment letter in which I was asked to report at the Himachal Pradesh Forest Academy on 09.08.2021 for 18 months of training (Annexure V).
8. Central Ground Water Board accepted my resignation, but deducted one month's of my salary amounting to Rs. 59,136 (Annexure VI).
9. On questioning, I was told that the one month's of salary deduction was due to me not informing them prior to one month of my resigning from the organization (Annexure VII).
310. I represented my case on two occasions and made RTI queries on two occasions (03.03.2022 and 24.04.2022), but my requests were turned down every time (Annexure VIII).
11. I even supplied CGWB with a circular by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India relating to technical resignation (OM No. 28020/2/2018- Estt.(C) dated 27.08.2018) where there is no mention of any deduction, but it was of no avail (Annexure IX).
12. On my third representation, I was intimated on 23.05.2022 to contact you with my grievances. Hence, my representation with you now for help (Annexure X).
13. Since I had already faced the written examination of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission prior to joining CGWB, and since I informed CGWB about my selection in the written examination and was issued a no objection certificate by them for appearing at the personal interview, and again since I informed CGWB about my final selection on 22.07.2022 immediately after receipt of my final results, I believe I have complied with the mandatory official requirement of informing CGWB about it.
14. I received my appointment letter on 03.08.2021, and again immediately informed CGWB about it.
15. I tendered my technical resignation with effect from 06.08.2021 since I was asked to report at the Himachal Pradesh Forest Academy on 09.08.2021.
16. Had I been issued my appointment letter or at least be sure of my training date prior to one month from 09.08.2021, I would have notified CGWB accordingly. But since I had no role in such delayed official communication and immediacy of joining date for the training, I am not at fault. Therefore, the judgement by CGWB that I did not inform them one month prior to tendering my technical resignation is wrong.
17. I am a poor girl starting my career with the Government and one month's of my hard-earned money is important to me.
18. Under these circumstances, I request your good self to issue necessary instruction to CGWB to refund one month's of my salary (Rs. 59,136) deducted by them illegally."
4She further prayed the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide a copy of relevant rulings/guidelines whereby the CWGB is authorized to deduct the salary of one's month during technical resignation from the post of Senior technical assistant (hydrogeology) without any specific clause to this effect in the appointment letter.
The CPIO at the outset reiterated the contents of his averred reply and further, at the behest of the Commission, agreed to provide a copy of relevant Ruling/ Guidelines/ Circulars regarding deduction of one month salary of employees upon non- service of notice period of one month to CWGB in advance before resignation.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding deduction of her one month's salary on technical resignation and seeking clarification from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, her attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to 5 obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of the Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more 6 parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, by taking an empathetic view in the matter and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of relevant Ruling/ Guidelines/ Circulars regarding deduction of salary of employees upon non- service of notice period of one month to CWGB in advance before resignation. The said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7