Central Information Commission
T. Velmurugan vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 25 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MH&FW/A/2024/102721
Shri T. Velmurugan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Date of Hearing : 20.02.2025
Date of Decision : 20.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.07.2023
PIO replied on : 18.08.2023 & 30.09.2023
First Appeal filed on : 21.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : 06.11.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "How many applications for taking action against Shri. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard) in connection with intimation of insolvency 'and indebtedness under Rule 17 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 have been received by JIPMER and provide details thereof.
2. Provide report of Fact Finding Committee which was constituted by JIPMER to enquiry the allegations against Shri. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard) as he has embezzled the huge sum of money pertains to Staff members of JIPMER through chit fund activities.
3. Provide a copy of minutes of meeting of Committee on legal issues where the decision was taken to close the case pertaining to chit fund case of Shri. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard) irrespective of fact that number of complaints had been registered against Shri. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard) as he has embezzled the huge sum of money pertains to Staff members of JIPMER through chit fund activities.
4. Provide the copy of Conduct Rules wherein the employees of JIPMER have been exempted from disciplinary action under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 for violation of conduct rules and cheating the employees of JIPMER through chit fund activities.
5. Provide the copy of letter were written to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Dhanvantrinagar, Gorimedu, Pondicherry for Page 1 inquiry in connection with intimation of insolvency and indebtedness of Mr. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard) as he had embezzled the huge sum of money pertains to Staff members of JIPMER through chit fund activities and he violates the rules 17 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
6. Provide the reply received from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Dhanvantrinagar, Gorimedu, Pondicherry after investigation by the Police authorities in connection with chit fund case of Mr. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard).
7. Provide the details of promotion given to Mr. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard).
8. Provide the copy of rule under which he has been cleared from vigilance angle irrespective of fact that there is a disciplinary case pending against Shri. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard) in connection with intimation of insolvency and indebtedness vide Rule 17 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the matter is also pending with Dhanvantrinagar Police Station, Puducherry.
9. Provide the details of allegations against JIPMER employees have been made by the public and their applications have been disposed off without taking action under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, advised to approach the police authorities or the court of law.
10. Provide the details of allegations against JIPMER employees have been made by the JIPMER employees though the applicants and defendants are JIPMER employees and their applications have been disposed off without taking action under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, advised to approach the police authorities or the court of law.
11. Provide the copy of guidelines, criteria and rules that have been followed by JIPMER to arrive conclusion that Mr. ER Raja, MTS (Security Guard) was not running the chit fund activities amongst Staff of JIPMER and he is innocent from allegation and he is deserve for promotion to higher post when he is under a cloud."
The CPIO, Administration -III(A) Section, JIPMER, Puducherry vide letter dated 18.08.2023 replied as under:-
1. "The requisite information cannot be provide under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 & 11:-The requisite information does not pertain to the CPIO of Admn. III (A) Section.
7:- The requisite information does not pertain to the CPIO of Admn. III (A) Section. Hence, the RTI application has been transferred under Section 6(3) of RTI Act. 2005 to the CPIOs of Administration - I Section (Promotion Cell), JIPMER for providing information to the applicant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.09.2023.
The CPIO/JIPMER, Administration Section-I, Promotion Cell, Puducherry vide letter dated 30.09.2023 replied as under:-
".........the information requested by Shri T. Velmurugan requesting to furnish the details of promotion given to Shri E. R. Raja, MTS (Security Guard) has been examined in detail and it is Page 2 informed that the appellant is a third party and the information sought by the appellant is personal information of others. Therefore, it is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the RTI application is disposed off."
The CPIO/JIPMER, Administration Section-I, Promotion Cell, vide letter dated 30.10.2023 replied as under:-
Shri T Velmurugan on a RTI application has requested to furnish information regarding the details of promotion given to Shri E. R. Raja, MTS (Security Guard). It is informed that the requested information was not furnished as the appellant is a third party and the information sought by the appellant is personal information of others. Therefore, it is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
As such, the information sought by the appellant is a personal information of the others under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the requested information may not be disclosed and the taply furnished by this section dated 30.09.2023 is in order. Accordingly, the first appeal raised by (the applicant may be disposed off.
The Law Officer/CPIO(D&CCC), vide letter dated 23.10.2023 replied as under In this connection, the undersigned has sent a reply to the applicant vide note dated 22.08.2023 (Copy enclosed). Now the applicant has filed an appeal vide dated 21.09.2023 and the same was forwarded to the undersigned vide note dated 10.10.2023 by CAPIO & Nodal Officer, RTI.
Further, the information for the questions 1,2,3&5 cannot be disclosed as it falls under the purview of personal information and which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy relating to Shri. E. R. Raja, Junior Administrative Assistant and furthermore disclosure of such information does not satisfy any larger public interest.
It is pertinent to mention that the applicant had submitted many complaints against Sh. E.R. Raja with respect to alleged involvement of chit fund activities (which is not yet proved anywhere as on date) and intimation of insolvency and indebtness (No information/documents available in this section). In this connection the applicant was informed to either approach the police authorities or court of law to get resolved the matter as per law along with findings of the Fact Finding Committee and observations of the Committee of legal issues vide note No. Estt. Disc.14(66)/2015 dated 16.05.2017 (Copy enclosed). Further, the information for the questions 4,6,7,8,9,10&11 were not available and imaginary. Hence the reply was given as "Not available". As per regulation no.42, of JIPMER Act, Rules and Regulations 2008, The Central Civil Services (Conduct), 1964 shall apply to the employees of the institute and action against the employees will be taken as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. When the questions from Page 3 the applicant was imaginary with respect to the rules and regulations, the undersigned found no reply for that imaginary questions and given the reply as "Not available". In view of the above, it is submitted before the First Appellate Authority, that the undersigned is not in a position to reply the imaginary question of the applicant and also cannot disclose the information disclose the information of an employee, which does not satisfy larger public interest.
Hence the First Appeallate Authority is requested to dispose the appeal accordingly for the reasons stated above.
In regard to his first appeal, the FAA vide order dated 06.11.2023 upheld the reply of CPIOs.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 15.02.205 has been received from the CPIO, Administration-III (A) and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 17.02.205 has been received from the Law Officer CPIO, Disc and Court Cases Cell) and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 19.02.205 has been received from the CPIO, Administration-I) and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Ms. P. Lakshmi Devi, CPIO, Ms. Poonagodi and Mr. Lakshminarayanan P, CPIO- participated in the hearing The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. They further stated that the with findings of the Fact Finding Committee and observations of the Committee has been duly provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Page 4 Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)