Central Information Commission
V R Senthilkumar vs Central Institute Of Brackishwater ... on 23 November, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CIBAQ/A/2020/671846
In the matter of:
V R Senthilkumar
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
ICAR - Central Institute Of Brackishwater Aquaculture,
75, Santhome High Road, R A Puram, Chennai - 600028.
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/03/2020 CPIO replied on : 15/04/2020 First appeal filed on : 27/04/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 26/05/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 27/05/2020 Date of Hearing : 22/11/2021 Date of Decision : 22/11/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over intra VC
Respondent: Dr J Shyam Dayal, Principal Scientist & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copies of all letters along with enclosures received during the period from 10.04.2013 to 15.03.2020 from ICAR-SBI, Coimbatore requesting service details or any other details in respect of Shri. V.R. Senthilkumar, former ACTO, CIBA & SBI.
2. Provide copies of the personal file note sheets in respect of Shri.V.R. Senthilkumar, former ACTO of CIBA for the period from 30.03.1992 to 15.03.2020.
3. Provide copies of the DPC note sheets in respect of Shri.V.R.Senthilkumar, former ACTO of CIBA for his assessment / merit promotion to T-3 to T-4, T-4 to T-5, T-5 to T-6 and T-6 to T-7-8.1
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date no information has been provided to him. In his written submissions he had stated that the CPIO and FAA had failed to take necessary action on the RTI applications and the required information was not provided even after the lapse of 60 days. The CPIO also did not made any effort to check the documents. Under the shelter of Covid19 lockdown, they are hiding the facts and not ready to supply the documents. The FAA also had failed to decide the RTI appeal properly and had passed an order which is also in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his detailed written submissions in which he has stated that at the time of receipt of the RTI application, the country went through a total lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19 from 25.03.2020 for 21 days, which was further extended up to 31.05.2020 with subsequent orders on lock down measures dated 15.04.2020 and 17.05.2020.
During this time, it was impossible for him to do all the work by himself and to send such voluminous information. In any Government organization, there is a system where the information will be spread in different compartments and CPIO is just an official to collect the information from different sources and send to RTI applicants. Since he was not the custodian of all the information, so it was not possible for him to send it without any assistance. Therefore, to provide the required information, the presence of all the required people to assist in doing the job was very much necessary which was not at all there during the COVID-19 period. However, respecting the RTI norms (viz., that reply should be furnished within one month), he had given a reply to the appellant on 15.04.2020 whereby he was requested to wait for the resumption of normal situation when his case can be suitably analyzed and the relevant information could be furnished. However, the appellant ignored the request of the CPIO and within just 12 days of the reply, submitted his first ??? appeal with a false allegation that the CPIO, CIBA has refused to provide the necessary information requested by him. Since the applicant had already appealed to the FAA, the role of the CPIO to process his RTI application further came to an end there itself. He has also stated that during the period of COVID, the meagre 2 staff present in the office was extremely busy to take care of the live animals, reared in his organization for research purpose for some important ongoing experiments and sophisticated equipments and therefore the time requested from the appellant was very much genuine to access the documents, doing photocopy or scanning etc. which would have been possible only when the institute became functional with adequate staff. With respect to the RTI application, he had informed that points A to F pertain to communications between two public authorities and his service particulars which dates back from 1992 onwards. On perusal of the official records it is noted that the appellant himself is in possession of the documents sought by him which is evident through his acknowledgement of receipt of the same at CIBA, Chennai and SBI, Coimbatore as has been mentioned in F.NO.CIC/SCBRI/A/2020/663011 dated 21.09.2020 of the Commission when some other application of the same appellant was decided. Besides this, the other items of information sought by him are not available in the office as they were weeded out as per GFR/ Record Retention Schedule of Govt. of India. For points G to M, he had stated that the information sought on these points were altogether on a different subject. The appellant has taken the images of Govt. records of ICAR-CIBA pertaining to the guest house during his stay in their Trainees' hostel (8-9 May 2018) without proper permission and posted the private information of Trainees' hostel inmates on social media compromising the privacy and security of the guests accommodated in their guest house. This information on different subjects including third party information of guests staying in their Trainees' hostel which will impinge on to the privacy, safety of the inmates and was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
In addition to the above, the CPIO had prayed that the case may be dismissed as the appellant already possessed the information sought by him as indicated above and seeking the same information through several RTI applications from more than one public organization not only drains the resources of the public authority but also wastes the precious time of the Commission. The CPIO had also brought it to the notice of the Commission that the appellant is a habitual misuser of RTI Act and his other applications of this kind were rejected by the same bench in File No. CIC/SCBRI/A/2020/661575 dated 21/09/2020 and CIC/SCBRI/A/2020/676145 dated 21/09/2020.
3Observations:
Having considered the detailed written submissions of both the parties and the oral submissions made during the hearing, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the fact that no reply was given to him. On the other hand, the CPIO had explained in great detail as to why no reply was given at the relevant time. The Commission is in total agreement with the submissions of the CPIO and holds that there was no malafide intention on his part in not providing any reply as an interim reply was given to the appellant on 15.04.2020 requesting the appellant to wait for some to time for getting a reply, however, there is no reasonable justification as to why a final reply was not given till date. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide a final point-wise reply to the appellant and wherever the information is available and can be given under the provisions of the RTI Act, the same should be provided and in case any information has been weeded out, the same should be informed to the appellant while enclosing a copy of the record retention order whereby the documents were weeded out and a copy of the relevant weeding out policy.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to consider the RTI application afresh and provide a revised, point-wise reply to the appellant as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4