Central Information Commission
Anil vs Iti Limited on 8 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2014/900157
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2014/900278
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2014/900156
Complainant: Mr. Anil Kumar,
R/o. B 1, Samhita Vista,
1st Main, 2nd Cross Pai Layout Vidya Nagar,
Bangalore-560016, Karnataka
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
ITI Ltd., ITI Bhavan, Corporate Office,
Bangalore-560016
Date of Hearing: 07.03.2017
Dated of Decision: 07.03.2017
ORDER
Facts:
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2014/900157
1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 28.03.2014 seeking information on 20 points regarding: the certified copy of the document confirming the CDA rule under which displeasure order has been issued to the appellant by the DA; whether the displeasure note is a minor penalty under CDA rule of ITI Ltd.; if so, under which rule of the company or Act or rules of GOI, various information relating to Vigilance Wing; the date on which Sh. R K Agarwal was appointed/nominated by the CMD as DA in his case, and other related issues.
2. The response of CPIO is not on record. The first appeal of the complainant is not on record. The response of FAA is not on record. The 1 complainant filed complaint on 15.05.2014 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2014/900278
3. The complainant filed RTI application dated 23.08.2014 seeking information on 11 points regarding: certified copy of the records/documents of the hearing held on 25.07.2013 by the ALC (C), as indicated by the APIO/CPIO; certified copy of the records/documents based on which the APIO/CPIO is alleging that the complainant tried to show the company in poor light; whether corporate office-ITI Ltd. was open on 01.04.2012, and other related issues.
4. The response of CPIO is not on record. The first appeal of the complainant is not on record. The response of FAA is not on record. The complainant filed complaint on 31.10.2014 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2014/900156
5. The complainant filed RTI application dated 26.03.2014 seeking information on 14 points regarding: certified copy of all the CVO's instructions on complaint handling procedure issued to the Unit Vigilance Heads (UVHs) since April, 2011 along with the copy of its approval by competent authority; certified copy of earlier CVO's instructions issued to UVHs vide reference number COR/VIG/Instructions dated 21.02.2007 and 19.07.2008; copy of all the CVO's instructions issued to Unit Vigilance Heads from April, 2011 etc.
6. The CPIO responded on 25.11.2016. The first appeal of the complainant is not on record. The response of FAA is not on record. The complainant filed complaint on 15.05.2014 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him. Hearing:
7. The complainant participated in the hearing through his representative via video conferencing. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
28. The complainant stated that there is a delay of 10, 20 and 12 days respectively on part of the respondent in giving reply to his aforesaid RTI applications.
9. The complainant further stated that action should be taken against the respondent for furnishing delayed replies.
10. The respondent stated that the information sought by the complainant has been provided to him barring names, designations and identities of the persons directly or indirectly connected with the vigilance investigation.
11. The respondent further stated that the information sought was voluminous and it took some time to complete the internal formalities. Hence, the abovesaid delays occurred.
12. The respondent also stated that the complainant has filed several RTIs. Discussion/ observation:
13. The Commission enquired from the complainant whether he feels that malafide was involved in delays. No specific reply was given in the matter by complainant.
14. The delays have been of short duration. The volume of information sought was large. No malafide has been observed. The action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI applications is satisfactory. Decision:
15. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The complaints are disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar 3