Central Information Commission
Dr. Satyakam Borthakur vs Central Vigilance Commission (Cvc) on 4 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01038 dated 10-6-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Dr. Satyakam Borthakur
Respondent: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Decision Announced 4.11.'09
FACTS
By an application of 17-1-08 Dr. Satyakam Borthakur of Barua Tinali, PO Zaloni Dibruduar, Duliajan, Distt. Dibrugarh, Assam applied to the CPIO, CVC seeking the following information:
"a) Date of second stage of advice by the Commission in respect each of the 4 cases given in para 2 above.
b) Copy of the latest monthly or quarterly report/ return on the status of the outstanding cases submitted by the CVO of Oil India Limited to the Commission.
c) Actions taken by the Commission in respect of the delayed cases mentioned in para 2 above and those appearing in the report mentioned in (b) above so as to ensure the compliance of the time frame given by the Commission itself as mentioned in para 1 above.
d) Copies of the Show Cause notices issued to the delinquent officers for the misconduct of delay beyond stipulated time with the attendant ramifications as notified by the Commission vide its circular No. 000/VGL/18 dated 3.3.2003 in the unduly delayed 4 cases mentioned in para 2 above.
e) In case no action for the misconduct of delay as aforesaid has been initiated so far the reasons for not complying its own circular by the Commission may please be furnished.
f) The course of actions proposed to be taken indicating the time frame in case no action has been initiated as mentioned in previous point.
g) Details of relieves/ compensations available to the charged officers for the sufferings both physically/ mentally, (It may be mentioned that one of the charged officers has been died during this long delay).' To this Dr. Satyakam Borthakur received a response on 31-1-08 point- wise from CPIO Dr. Jaya Balachandran, Director, CVC as below:
"(i) Oil India Limited has not yet sought the Commission's second stage advice in respect of S/Shri T. Kataky, D K Dutta, SSZ Haque, KSB Rao, CR Dash, BP Babu is concerned, the Commission 1 was intimated by Oil India Limited that he has already taken VRS from the Company and accordingly, the Commission advised closure of the case against him.
(ii) Second stage advice in respect of S/Shri A. K. Khatoniai, RN Neogi, R. K. Mathur and P. Saraswat has been issued on 25.6.2007. There was no second stage advice in respect of Shri J. K. Talukdar since the Commission advised issuance of a warning to him in its first stage advice.
(iii) As per the data available in the Commission, it is seen that the cases in respect of Shri Joydev Lahiri and Shri N. R. Dev have not been reported to the Commission.
3. With regard to your request in para 3 (b), you are advised to approach Oil India Limited for supply of their monthly of quarterly report/ return.
4. With regard to para 3 (c) to 3 (g), it has been observed that they do not pertain to any information and hence, not being provided since the RTI Act provides only for supply of information."
Not satisfied Dr. Satyakam Borthakur moved an appeal before Shri V.K. Gupta, Addl. Secretary, CVC on 11-3-08 seeking following relief:
"To provide me a copy of the latest monthly or quarterly report/ return submitted by the CVO of Oil India Limited as requested in para 3 (b) of the RTI application (Annexure-I).
To provide the information sought in para 3 (a) to 3 (g) of the RTI application in Annexure I. The documents involved be provided now free of costs."
Upon this appellate authority Shri V.K. Gupta AS in his order of 26-3-08 decided as follows:
"1. I have perused the relevant records and find that the appellant is seeking a copy of the monthly report submitted by CVO, Oil India Ltd. CPIO is directed to provide to the appellant a copy o the latest monthly report available as on the date of receipt of this application i.e. pertaining to month of December, 2007 received in the Commission.
2. As regards the remaining issues raised by the appellant i.e. points (c ) to (g), I find that information sought by 2 appellant relates to delays in processing disciplinary cases by Oil India Ltd., and action taken for delays if any. As per the monthly report for the month of December 2007 there is no case involving any abnormal or unexplainable delay. The Commission takes up cases of delay etc with the CVO and management of the organization concerned whenever any such delays are observed. The other issues raised by the appellant amounts/ relates to interpretation of rules/ instructions and also seeking queries/ clarification from a public authority. Such issues do not fall under the purview of RTI Act."
Dr. Borthakur has then moved his second appeal before us with the following plea:
(i) "Suitable actions may kindly be taken for providing me the copies of the documents on record and information sought immediately against points (c) to (g) of the RTI application (Annexure I).
(ii) Information are to be given free of cost and fees paid to be refunded.
(iii) Imposition of appropriate penalties under section 20 (1)
(iv) Disciplinary action against defaulting officers as per Section 20 (2)j of the Act and 18 (1) (e)
(v) Payment of adequate compensation to me may please be ordered to compensate for the monetary loss suffered by me in terms of expenditure towards consultation with experts, preparation of appeals, postage etc and my time and effort and harassments."
As will be seen appellant is not satisfied with the response to questions
(c) to (g), reply to the remaining questions having been received to his satisfaction. The appeal was heard on 4-11-09, through video-conference with arrangements at Dibrugarh. However, appellant Dr. Borthakur was not to be present. His mobile telephone connection received no response. In response to landline the Registry was told that appellant was not present at his place of work. The following are present at CIC Chambers, New Delhi:
Respondents Ms. S. Sarasvathy, Director, CVC.
Shri Rameshwar Dass, Section Officer.3
Subsequent to the hearing, we learnt that appellant Dr. Borthakur is present at NIC Studio Tinsukhia. He was heard on the telephone pleading that even where information was not held by the CVC he required to be informed of this fact.
Ms. S. Sarasvathy, Director, CVC submitted that in consequence of the delays from Oil India, CVC has issued some reminders. However, no further action has been taken in this regard.
DECISION NOTICE We cannot agree with CPIO that the information sought with regard to questions (c) to (g) did not pertain to any information since appellant has asked for specific information against each of these points. It is another matter that in respect of the delayed case the only action taken by the Commission is through reminders only. This action should have been intimated to appellant Shri Borthakur and where no action has been taken in the remaining cases the appellant required to be informed accordingly. Hence, in the present case the appeal is allowed. CPIO Ms. S. Sarasvathy, Director, CVC will now provide an answer to each of these points even where the information held by the Information Commission is nil within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. But because there has been no delay in response or a violation of the Act qualifying for penalty, there will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing, with appellant informed on the telephone at the conclusion of the telephone conversation. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 4-11-2009 4 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 4-11-2009 5