Central Information Commission
Mrs Yojana Nitin Urankar vs Ordnance Factory Board on 15 September, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/OFBKO/A/2020/601328
In the matter of:
Mrs Yojana Nitin Urankar
...Appellant
VS
1. CPIO
Ordnance Factory Board (OFB),
10-A, S K Bose Road, Kolkata -700001
2. The CPIO
Ordnance Factory (OFDR)
Dehu Road, Pune - 412101
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 05/09/2019 CPIO replied on : 21/10/2019, 26/10/2019 First appeal filed on : 15/11/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 01/01/2020 Second Appeal filed on : 13/01/2020 Date of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Date of Decision : 14/09/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present alongwith her representative Nitin Janardhan, over VC Respondent: Shri Ajit Prasad KK, Staff Officer & CPIO, OFB, Kolkata and Shri Utpal Shrivastav, Joint GM & PIO, OFB, Dehu Road, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
a) Provide a copy of the vigilance report submitted in response to CVO, OFB, Kolkata Order No. A/VIG/C-16/2011 dated 08/08/2011 regarding irregularities in the direct recruitment of LDC and other posts at OFDR.1
b) Provide a copy of Director/Vigilance (West) letter No. Dir/Vig(W)/C-
179/2012 dated 19/11/2012 addressed to the Maharashtra State Board of Tech. Education, Mumbai.
c) Provide copies of letters forwarded by all the factories/units in response to OFB, Kolkata letter dated 27/10/2017 and 20/12/2017, showing details of candidates who were promoted to the post of Chargeman in various Technical and non-Technical disciplines after qualifying LDCE on the basis of degree / diploma not approved by AICTE subsequent to the issue of SRO-66 dated 27/05/2003.
d) And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the appellant reiterated the contents of the detailed written submissions dated 07.09.2021 wherein the appellant had pointed out the deficiencies in the reply given by the OFB, Kolkata and Ordnance Factory, Dehu Road. She further submitted that except for the information sought on point (a), no other information has been provided to her.
The CPIO, OFB Kolkata submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 01.10.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that initially the CPIO, OFB, Kolkata had denied the information. However, the FAA in his order dated 01.01.2020 had directed the CPIO to provide the relevant information on points (a) & (c). For point (b), the appellant was asked to seek the information directly from Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai. For points (d) & (e), it was stated that the requested information is scattered in 41 units all over India. Collection & compilation of the data upto May 2003 will amount to creation of new Data which is not the mandate of the RTI Act.
Point (e) & (g) were transferred to OFDR for furnishing the information directly to the appellant. Thereafter on receipt of the appeal from the appellant, the FAA, OFDR had provided a point-wise reply to the appellant on 01.02.2020 whereby for points (a), (b) & (g), it was stated that the information is not 2 available with them, for points (c) to (f), the information was denied u/s 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was also noted that for points (b) & (g), whatever information was available with the CPIO, OFDR the same was provided to the appellant.
During the hearing, both the CPIOs elaborated on the replies given by them and on point (e), the CPIO, OFB, Kolkata submitted that in File No. CIC/CC/C/2014/900273, the fact that no such information was available with them was accepted by the Commission and an affidavit was duly filed with a copy to the appellant. The Commission finds that every point has been adequately replied to and whatever information could have been shared, the same was given to the appellant.
Despite the above, the appellant in her written submissions has stated that no relevant information has been provided to her particularly on points (b) to (f). However, since a copy of the submission was not given to the CPIOs, they were not in a position to make any additional submission in reference to the deficiencies pointed out by the appellant in her written submissions. The appellant is therefore directed to send a copy of her submissions both to the CPIO, OFB, Kolkata and the CPIO, OFDR within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. Upon receipt of the submissions from the appellant, both the CPIOs are directed to provide an additional reply to the appellant in a point-wise manner while answering the particular queries raised by the appellant within a further period of 21 days, if not already answered.
Decision:
In view of the above, both the parties are directed to follow the directions within the stipulated time given above and the CPIOs are also directed to send a copy of the final reply to the Commission as well.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
3
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
4