Central Information Commission
Mr.Chandan Lal vs Bsnl, Chandigarh on 12 June, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/000640
Dated June 12, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr.Chandan Lal
Name of the Public Authority : BSNL, Chandigarh
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.26.12.08 with the CPIO, BSNL, Chandigarh. He requested for the certified copy of the complaint sent by Mr. Sham Lal, Sr.TOA(Retd.) noted at S.No.2 of the file addressed to Mr. Rajinder Singh, CGMT, Punjab. The CPIO replied on 28.1.09 denying the information u/s 8(1)(e). Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.26.2.09 with the Appellate Authority requesting for the information. The Appellate Authority replied on 30.3.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. He also stated that the Appellant has claimed self-assumed service of larger interest of the SC/ST community on disclosure of information without demonstrating the manner how it would happen. He added that he did not see any merit in the appeal of the Applicant and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.24.4.09 before the CIC stating that when the information seeker was about to retire from service on 31.10.06 and criminal cases titled State Vs. Chandan Lal & cross complaint Chandanlal Vs. Sham Lal & others were under trial, then Shri Sham Lal, Sr. TOA (retired), an accused in cross complaint Chandanlal Vs. Sham Lal & others, made a false and frivolous complaint against information seeker to Shri Rajinder Singh CGM, Punjab , Chandigarh and that the retirement benefits of information seeker were withheld illegally on this false and frivolous information of Shri Sham Lal, Sr. TOA; and that the matter involves the violation of section 3(1)(ix) and 8(b) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity Act), 1989 and the disclosure of information involves wider interest of the Public specially SC and ST community.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for June 12, 2009.
3. Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, GM(Admn), Punjab cum CPIO and Mr. Gurmohar Singh, PA(RTI) represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the disclosure of complaint would deter citizens from exercising their right to expression which in many ways does not hold good for refinement of Government Machinery through mode of complaint mechanism which is basically an instrumentality to create good governance. He added that the Appellant is indulging in false submissions to misguide the Commission. The retired benefits of the Appellant were actually withheld in view of pendency of judicial proceedings vis-à-vis criminal case against him with reference to provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. The FIR No.76 dated 6.7.96 under Section 353, 332, 186 IPC was got registered against the Appellant and he was facing trial in that case. According to the Respondent, the falsehood of the submissions of the Appellant furthermore gets substantiated from the perusal of the order dated 11.3.2008 of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana which dismissed his Civil Writ Petition No.10402 of 2007 as withdrawn. The said Civil Writ Petition was filed by the Appellant for release of his pensionary benefits. The Respondent further added that the Appellant is forcefully striving to forge public interest or for that matter interest of SC/ST community in the instant case by self-assuming violation of Section 3(1)(ix) and 8(b) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention) of Atrocity Act, 1989. The Respondent held that the factual position elaborated aforesaid leaves no scope for any doubt to the effect that no atrocity has been committed upon the Appellant as defined in Section 3(1)(ix) as stoppage of his retrial benefits was purely attributed to pendency of certain judiciary proceedings against him in Court of Law which did have consequences of application of relevant provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 by the competent authority. The Appellant, according to the Respondent, is maliciously trying to associate his criminal involvement and resultant stoppage of his retrial benefits with interests of whole SC/ST community with reference to Section 3(1)(ix) aforementioned. He added that no case of public interest is made out in favour of the Appellant for whittling down the applicability of Section 8(i)(e) of the Act which is purely based on the merits of the case and in interest of good governance which RTI Act also envisages by way of lifting veil of secrecy from the operations of public bodies. The Appellant, on the other hand, averred that his retirement benefits were withheld illegally on the false and frivolous information provided by Mr. Sham Lal, Sr. TOA.
The Commission after hearing the submissions from both sides, denies disclosure of information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(i)(g) as the information is being held in a fiduciary relationship and also since disclosure of the same may endanger the life or physical safety of the individual concerned.
6. The Commission accordingly dismisses the appeal.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:
1. Mr.Chandan Lal S/o Mr.shri Bhagwan Dass Thakur Abadi St. No.10 P.O. Abohar Rajasthan 152 116
2. Mr.A.K.Sharma The CPIO & General Manager (A) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited O/o Chief General Manager Punjab Telecom Circle Chandigarh
3. Mr.P.K.Paliwal The Appellate Authority & Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited O/o Chief General Manager Punjab Telecom Circle Chandigarh
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC