Central Information Commission
Mr.Narhari Das vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation on 31 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000349
Dated, the 31 August, 2010.
st
Appellant : Shri Narhari Das
Respondent : Coal Mines Provident Fund
s This secondappeal deals with appellant's RTIapplication dated 07.11.2009, through which he had asked for a series of documents listed below: "1. Joint commissioner's inquiry report of 1999/reference letter No.CPF/Misc./RC/Legal/Contractors workers/H.Q. /169 to dated 28/29 July 1999.
2. Action taken on Joint Commissioner's Inquiry report / directives by the CMPF office to RCs. Office Ranch / CCL, Ranchi.
3. List of Coal Transport Contractors engaged in NK area piparwar of CCL from 1983 to 2006 (since reorganisation of Regional Offices at CCL Ranchi)
4. List of employees engaged by the Coal transport contractors in NK area Piparwar of CCL from 1982 to 2006.
5. Yearwise numbers of certificates issued by CMPF officers to NK area Piparwar of CCL management for releasing bills of Coal transport contractors - 1982 to 2006.
6. Yearwise numbers of certificates issued by CMPF officers to NK area Piparwar of CCL management for releasing bills of Coal transport contractors - 1982 to 2006.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000349_M_42088.doc Page 1 of 5
7. Yearwise deposits in CMPF in respect of Coal Transport contractors in NK area Piparwar of CCL from 1982 to 2006.
8. List of RCs/ACI/ACII posted in different Regional Offices at Ranchi since 19822006.
9. The decisions by the various Hon'ble courts regarding coverage of the Transportation work under CMPF Act and Scheme 1948.
(i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court 1995 (Viz. C403) by Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.HIDAYATULLAH AND V.RAMASWAIMIJJin [sic] Criminal Appeal No.158 of 1965 dated 25.4.1966.
(ii) Judgement dated 08.07.1988 by the civil Judge ClassII, Chhindwara (M.P.) in C.A. Case No.2118/88, Map Transport Co. Vs. Union of India and others.
(iii) Appellate Order dated 03.02.2000 passed by the district Civil Court, Chhindwara (M.P.) in civil Appeal No.21A/96.
(iv) Award dated 12.01.1977 delivered by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I at Dhanbad in Reference No.15 of 1974 published in Gazette of India under S.O. No.452 dated 24.1.1977, New Delhi. And details of necessary amendments in the CMPF act and scheme or appeal filed by CMPFO against in the competent court.
(10) Superintendent of Police, CBI's Report of Ranchi."
2. CPIO, through his communication dated 04.01.2010, declined to disclose this information under Section 8(1)(h) on the ground that a departmental proceeding/enquiry was extant against the appellant and the requested documents as 'relied upon' documents in that enquiry could well have been sought by the appellant from the Enquiry Officer himself.
3. Appellate Authority, in his decision dated 20.01.2010, endorsed the position taken by the CPIO.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000349_M_42088.doc Page 2 of 5
4. Matter was heard on 31.08.2010 through videoconference (VC) in the presence of appellant and the respondents' representative (Shri S.K. Sinha, Regional Commissioner & CPIO). They interacted with the Commission from the NIC VC facilities at Doranda, Ranchi and Dhanbad respectively, while the Commission conducted the hearing from its office at New Delhi.
5. Appellant stated that, contrary to the averment of the CPIO, that the departmental enquiry was current, the said enquiry was already over. He, therefore, stated that the prohibition under Section 8(1)(h) would not apply here because the disclosure of the information would not impede a concluded enquiry/investigation.
6. CPIO stated that he was not aware that the enquiry against the appellant was concluded or closed. He, therefore, stuck to his argument about nondisclosure of the information under Section 8(1)(h). It was CPIO's further argument that appellant in his RTIapplication had asked him to disclose information which was held by other public authorities. As examples, he cited appellant's request at Sl.Nos.3, 4, 7, 9 and 10. He stated that the public authority, viz. office of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner was not the holder of these items of information. For the other items, he stated that the position regarding the status of the enquiry and the views of the Enquiry Officer would need to be ascertained before a decision for disclosure of the information was taken.
7. If this information relates to an enquiry already concluded then this has to be disclosed or reconsidered in the context of Section 8(1) exemption of the RTI Act about whether they are liable to be disclosed at all. The beginning has to be made by first referring the matter back to the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceeding mentioned by the CPIO. It is accordingly directed the CPIO, within one week of the receipt of this order, make a reference to the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry proceeding mentioned by him for advice on: CIC_AT_A_2010_000349_M_42088.doc Page 3 of 5
a) whether the information listed at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 8, be disclosed or whether the Enquiry Officer had already provided these documents to the appellant, as relied upon documents, in the course of the enquiry against him.
b) In case, as stated by the appellant, the enquiry has been concluded, CPIO should obtain the information about the exact status of the proceedings against the appellant. In case the enquiry is over, CPIO shall reexamine the RTI request of the appellant relating to the abovementioned items and decide about the disclosability of each requested information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, especially Section 8(1) of the Act and Section 11(1).
Time ― four weeks from the receipt of this order.
8. CPIO has rightly pointed out that the items of queries in appellant's RTIapplication, as reproduced supra, are not held by the public authority, office of CMPF Commissioner. As appellant is required to file his RTI application under Section 6(1) before "the concerned public authority", insofar as office of CMPF Commissioner is not the concerned public authority for those items of information, no obligation can be cast on them for the disclosure. They are not obliged even to transmit these queries to other public authorities under Section 7(3) as laiddown in the ratio of Commission's Full Bench decision in Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs. CBEC; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01280; Date of Decision:22.09.2009.
9. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000349_M_42088.doc Page 4 of 5 ( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CIC_AT_A_2010_000349_M_42088.doc Page 5 of 5