Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Subhash Kumar Singh vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 16 December, 2020

                                के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2019/101116

Shri Subhash Kumar Singh                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

                                                       ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
PIO, Asst. Personal officer (R&V),
Department Of Atomic Energy, Heavy Water
Plant, (Kota) Rasthan-323303
Through: Sh. Anirban Bhattacharya - PIO

Date of Hearing                      :    16.12.2020
Date of Decision                     :    16.12.2020
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   06.10.2018
PIO replied on                        :   20.10.2018
First Appeal filed on                 :   07.11.2018
First Appellate Order on              :   26.11.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   07.01.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2018seeking information on the following 4 points:

1. जवीर सह आपके िवभाग म कायरत है या नह ? य द कायरत है तो कस पद पर एवं कस िजले म कायरत है?

2. जवीर सह के कायालय का स पूण पता, जहाँ कायरत है|

3. जवीर सह क जुलाई एंड अग त 2018 क वतमान pay Slip.

4. जवीर सह का वतमान िनवास पता, जहाँ वह अपने प रवार के साथ वतमान म रह रहे ह| The CPIO,Department of Atomic Energy, Heavy Water Plant, Kota furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.10.2018 stating that the said Brajbir Singh is employed at their Chittorgarh unit as Technical Officer/D. The Respondent stated that salary of employees can be looked up at their website, while denying information against query no. 4 under Section 8(1)(g) and

(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2018.The FAA vide order dated 26.11.2018 re-examined the information provided to the appellant by the CPIO and furnished information about the gross salary drawn by Sh. Brajbir Singh between July and August 2018 but denied the pay slips under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA returned the IPO, which had been wrongly sent by the Appellant along with the First Appeal, stating that no fee is required at that stage.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

An undated, unsigned brief summary has been received from the Respondent, reiterating the above facts of the case.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant is not present despite service of hearing notice in advance for video conference. Respondent is duly represented by the PIO through video conference and reiterated the facts of the case as already discussed above.

Decision:

Upon examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that no cause of action survives in this case which requires adjudication by this Commission, since more than adequate information has already been provided from available records by the Respondent. Appellant has chosen not to appear in this case to buttress his case. Hence, cause of his dissatisfaction with the information so provided by the Respondent cannot be ascertained.

The appeal is disposed off as such.

Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2