Central Information Commission
Siva Kumar Ganiwada vs Spices Board on 11 October, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SPIBO/A/2023/635760
Siva Kumar Ganiwada .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Deputy Director (Admin),
Spices Board, Sugandha Bhavan,
NH Bye Pass, Palarivattom,
Kochi - 682025 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.10.2024
Date of Decision : 10.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 16.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 28.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.07.2023
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"SPICES BOARD vide letter ADM/WS/01/2020-21/1861 dated 27/11/2020 proposed to engage IIMK for conducting work study, in this connection
1. Furnish a copy of the work study report submitted by Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode (IIMK) to Spices Board."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.03.2023 stating as under:
"Ans. to Q. No.1): Work Study report is not finalized."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Binesh, CPIO, appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 30.09.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"Shri Siva Kumar Ganiwada submitted an RTI application on 16.02.2023 requesting to furnish a copy of the work study report submitted by Indian Page 2 of 5 Institute of Management Kozhikode (IIMK) to Spices Board. The PIO vide letter No. ADM/RTI/01/2020-21/2573 dated 16.03.2023 informed the appellant that the work study report is not finalized.
In this regard the following are submitted that the last work study in Spices Board was conducted in the year 2003 by Internal work study unit of the Department of Commerce. Since then, functions and duties of the Board increased manifolds. Quality control of Spices Board for export is a major function of Spices Board and Spices Board has set up 8 Quality evaluation laboratories at the major export processing/trading areas and also established 8 Spices Parks in major spice producing states. Further Ministry of Commerce has approved the restructuring proposal of Spices Board on 4.2.2020 making it a lean organization by reducing the sanctioned staff strength from 513 to 379.
Considering the above aspects, Spices Board has entrusted IIM Kozhikode to conduct work study in Spices Board with the intention to evaluate whether the existing manpower distribution across departments is justified in the light of the current objectives and targets of Spices Board and for recommendation for modification in the staff pattern across the departments and also to solve the disparity if any in technical cadres of Spices Board. Board has received several grievances from Junior Chemists, Junior Microbiologists on limited career prospects and from Agriculture Demonstrators and Senior Agriculture Demonstrators for upgrading their pay level. The grievances received from these employees also referred for the work study.
IIMK submitted the draft work study report on 20.03.2022. Board forwarded the preliminary observations on the draft report to the IIMK pointing out factual errors, inconsistencies and contradictions in the report and requested to conduct more fruitful discussion and work assessment by multiple visit to Head Office and prime location offices. In continuation to this Board's officials visited IIM, Kozhikode and held discussions with the work study team.
IIMK on 5.8.2022 submitted its final report to the Secretary, Spices Board. The Secretary, Spices Board constituted a committee to examine Page 3 of 5 the report and identify the recommendations which may be accepted by the Board and which may not be accepted. The Committee examined the report and noticed some major draw backs in the report. The Committee requested the Study Team for a meeting to discuss the observations of the committee for further necessary action. Accordingly, an online meeting of the work-study team of IIM and members of the Committee constituted to study the work-study report was held on 22.11.2022. The Committee informed the major mistakes/factual errors in the report, to the Study team.
The Committee also informed the study team that it would be difficult to accept the report in the present form by the Board. The Study team confirmed in the meeting that there will not be any change in the final report. Board has sent a detailed letter to the Director, IIM highlighting the major draw backs of the report. No reply has been received from the IIM.
In view of the above, the committer at its meeting held on 20.04 2023 unanimously resolved to recommend not to accept the work study report submitted by the IIM, Kozhikode and to reject the same. Secretary, Spices Board has accepted the recommendations of the committee.
Based on the above, the PIO informed the appellant on 16.03.2023 that the work study report was not finalized.
Later on, 20.04.2023 the work study report submitted by IIMK was rejected by the Board."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the respondent has informed the appellant that Work Study report was not finalized, hence, the same could not be provided. Besides, the respondent has filed detailed written submission stating complete story about the report which was reproduced in the above paras.Page 4 of 5
In view of the above, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
First Appellate Authority, Spices Board, Sugandha Bhavan, NH Bye Pass, Palarivattom, Kochi - 682025 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)