Central Information Commission
Anuradha Rathour vs Department Of Space on 30 June, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSPCE/A/2018/634207-BJ
Ms. Anuradha Rathour
(Email: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Dy. Secretary,
Indian Space Research Organisation,
Department of Space, Antariksh Bhawan,
New BEL Road, Bengaluru - 560231
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.06.2020
Date of Decision : 30.06.2020
Date of RTI application 04.06.2018
CPIO's response 26.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 05.06.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 19.06.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding a copy of every note orders and every correspondence on her representations against harassment at ADRIN dated 08.08.2017 and 27.12.2017.
Dissatisfied with the interim reply dated 04.06.2018, the Appellant approached the FAA (not on record). The FAA, vide its order dated 19.06.2018, upheld the interim reply provided by the CPIO. The FAA further directed the CPIO/ custodian of records to provide the relevant information to the Appellant within 30 days, if the same is not exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to `severability clause' u/s 10 (1). Subsequently, the CPIO, vide letter dated 26.06.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Page 1 of 12 Act, 2005 since the Complaint lodged was under investigation. However, two pages communication received from DOS Secretariat was enclosed.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Chauhan Appellant's representative, through VC; Respondent: Ms. Kamala Rajesh, Dy. Secretary and CPIO through VC;
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by her, till date. The Appellant's representative further submitted that the information relating to file noting on the correspondence exchanged between ADRIN and DOS and other Authorities; representation of the Accused dated 02.04.2018; copy of the draft minutes taken by ICC member Ms. T. Sushma Leela during ICC enquiry conducted on 23.04.2018, etc., were not provided to her. Besides this the points mentioned in her written submission had not been addressed appropriately. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO/FAA and stated that the ICC completed its inquiry by holding meetings on 14.8.2018, 23.04.2018, 20.8.2018 and 28.8.2018. The inquiry report dated 01.09.2018 was given to the Appellant by the Department on 14.09.2018 for her submission/ representation. After considering her submission/ representation, ICC's comments and the Respondent's comments, the Competent Authority disposed of the Complaints on 18.02.2019. The order of the Competent Authority contains the complete narration of facts pertaining to the issues raised by the Appellant in her representations. The Appellant's representative contested the above averments of the Respondent and stated that she had only received the closure report and that the complete file notings and correspondences exchanged between the Authorities were not shared with her which is against the principles of natural justice. The Appellant's representative further stated that due process of law and the process established by law under POSH Act, 2013 and the RTI Act 2005, have been violated, both in letter and spirit and that she was deprived of her right to equality, life and liberty and right to information.
The Appellant's representative further relied on her written submissions which were narrated as under:-
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 25.06.2020 wherein while reiterating the background of the case, at the outset, she submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. affirmed that sexual harassment at workplace is a form of discrimination against women and recognized that it violates the fundamental rights of women guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The Vishaka Guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, the statute enacted by the Parliament and the Rules and Policies framed by the Government under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013, (POSH Act 2013), stipulate the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) comprising an external member from Page 2 of 12 NGO working for the cause of women, to handle complaints on sexual harassment. However, ICC did not exist in ADRIN, Dept. of Space. The absence of ICC in Dept. of Space was acknowledged in Parliament on 21-07-2016, by the then Hon'ble Union Minister for Women and Child Development Smt. Maneka Gandhi ji in her statement, that says - "All the Central Ministries or Departments except Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space have constituted Internal Complaint Committee in their offices".
Furthermore, she submitted that after the constitution of ICC post her Complaint, the enquiries were conducted against the principles of natural justice. The members of the committee, who reported to the Accused, gave statements in support of Accused which ICC committee filed as evidence against her and acquitted Accused of all charges and closed the case. The minutes of the meetings were prepared behind her and not shared with her, the responses of the Accused were not provided, the report of enquiry into the allegation of bias against ICC Chairperson was denied. Her repeated requisitions for the case related records - made verbally during enquiries and through written requests to the ICC and to the Director ADRIN and administration - were either not responded to or denied citing Section 16 of the POSH Act. The consistent denial of information by the management and ICC, forced her to file RTI applications to seek information regarding her complaint.
She further submitted that the RTI Act 2005 requires public authority to designate officers to deal with the requests for seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the applicants. The clause (1) under Section 5 is reproduced below:
"Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, designate as many officers as the Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act."
However, these authorities did not exist in ADRIN until 01-11-2018 as seen from the enclosed office memorandum (See Annexure A1 at Page No.07). So, she had to file RTI applications to Dept. of Space, which routed her requests to ADRIN Registrar, and caused further delay in responding to her applications. Later, ADRIN, RTI cell also rejected the requests and denied the information for one reason or the other such as - CPIO is not record keeper, information sought need not be linked to the sexual harassment complaint as it is already closed, then demanding Rs. 40,000/- to furnish the information on 20000 pages, which is available on computer system in electronic mode and should be provided on electronic mode only.
she further submitted that for 19 months, since filing of sexual harassment complaint against the Senior Scientist, she was subjected to continuous mental and emotional trauma, followed by unabated persecution by the management after the case was ordered to be closed on 18-02-2019.The management continued to deny information on her case and punished her by seeking order from Dept. of Space to initiate disciplinary action against her. It repeatedly ruined her annual performance reports (APAR) and damaged her career forever, while the case was under investigation. Furthermore, she requested to Director ADRIN for furnishing the records relied upon by him and reporting/reviewing officer, for giving adverse remarks in APAR, a copy Page 3 of 12 of which was also marked to the Appellate Authority - Secretary DOS. Though, no response was provided on her request and her non-acceptance for the APAR was deemed as her acceptance and she was issued a memo. Thereafter, a series of memos and show cause notices for unsubstantiated reasons were issued to her.
Moreover, in spite of her repeated objections to the language barrier during enquiries, the ICC committee members continued to speak in Telugu language during enquiry to suit their convenience and she was told that- "jaisa aapka Hindi Chalata, Hamara Telugu Chalta hai"[Just like you talk in Hindi, same way We talk in Telugu]. Later, her requests to provide for transcription and translation of the enquiry proceedings to enable her to file an appeal within 15 days, as directed by Disciplinary Authority, were also rejected and she was asked to get the audio record translated herself in the language she required. She also enclosed the said response from ADRIN to her requisitions to Disciplinary Authority (As Annexure A7 at Page No. 23 - Point No.5.2).The ICC report contained transliteration of the Telugu dialogues which was gibberish. The recording of ICC enquiry with Accused was provided to her 2 months after the case was closed by the ICC committee, and without translation. She incurred huge amount of stress, time and money to engage the services of professional translators to get the translation completed and filed the Writ Petition (WP 26728/2019) on 19-11-2019 in the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana which was admitted on 02-12-2019.
She further submitted that National Commission for Women sought Action Taken Report (ATR) into her Complaint, from ADRIN / Dept. of Space. NCW provided her a copy of the ATR on 31.08.2018, in reply to her RTI request, that revealed chronology of events of certain correspondence between ADRIN and Dept. of Space and the ICC meeting minutes that were generated but not shared with her. The audio record of ICC proceedings with the Accused was provided to her after closure of the case, which revealed the information on several documents submitted by the Accused but not shared with her. The translation of Telugu dialogues in ICC audio recording revealed the conversation among ICC members that established misreporting of facts in the minutes prepared behind her back, bias against her and the collusion of management with the Accused to close the case.
The facts and circumstances stated in her Appeal and in the present submission, provide sufficient ground to believe that due process of law and the process established by law under POSH Act 2013 and RTI Act 2005, have been violated, both in letter and spirit. She has been deprived of her right to equality, life and liberty and right to information. She, therefore, reiterated her prayer and requested the Commission to issue necessary orders to the Respondents to disclose the requested information, as summarized below, at the earliest. These records will establish the falsity in claims made on behalf of ADRIN and Dept. of Space to the hon'ble high court and will help defend her case.
1. File noting on her representations addressed to Dept. of Space through emails, Post and FAX. File noting on the correspondence exchanged between ADRIN and Dept. of Space and other authorities.
2. Representation of the Accused dt. 02-04-2018, Records and evidences submitted by the Accused in support of his claims, as heard in the audio record of ICC enquiry with him Page 4 of 12 dt. 28.08.2018. She has highlighted some of these records - copy of messages, phone call record, attendance record since 2008, copy of complaint against misbehavior by Dr. Mukund Rao, copy of complaint against Shri. Janardhan, copy of complaint against Vijay Kumar, copy of Delhi High Court Order, Order issued by Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri. Narender Modi ji, records of attendance.com website etc.
3. Copy of the draft minutes taken by ICC member Ms. T. Sushma Leela during ICC enquiry conducted with me on 23-04-2018.
4. File noting and copy of representation sent by ICC Chairperson Smt. Archana Mahapatra on the allegation of bias and collecting signatures against her and another complainant of sexual harassment, with active participation by Smt. PV Radha Devi.This was brought to the notice of ICC during enquiry on 23-04-2018.
5. File noting, correspondence and report of enquiry conducted on allegation of bias against ICC Chairperson Smt. Archana Mahapatra.
6. Copy of e-mails exchanged between ADRIN ICC members and ICC External members Professor N.Vasanthi and Professor Deepa Nair.
7. File noting and correspondence on her representation to ADRIN Director Shri. V. Raghu Venkatraman requesting action after she was assaulted by her reporting officer Ms. Archana Mahapatra in the chamber of my reviewing officer on 05.09.2018.
8. File noting, correspondence and the copy of responses of Ms. Archana Mahapatra and Smt. PV Radha Devi on the incident of assault dt. 05.09.2018.
9. File noting on her requisitions addressed to ADRIN Director Shri. V Raghu Venkatraman and to ICC and ADRIN administration.
10. File noting on her appeal dt 12-11-2018 to Disciplinary Authority, against the findings and report of ICC, including the copy of minutes of the ICC meeting dt. 03-01-2019, 07-01-2019, 08-01-2019 and 09-01-2019.
11. Copy of records and evidences in support of observations made by ADRIN Director Shri. V Raghu Venkatraman against her under Para No. 5 (h) of his reply ADRN/D/1.179 dt. 14-01-2019 submitted to Dept. of Space, in response to my appeal. This record, was relied upon by Dept. of Space to accept enquiry report and close the case, but denied to me citing fiduciary relationship and disclosure of which would endanger life and physical safety of the individuals.
Page 5 of 12The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 26th June, 2020 wherein the chronological sequence of the event was reiterated. It was further informed that the ICC completed inquiry by holding meetings on 14.8.2018, 23.04.2018, 20.8.2018 and 28.8.2018. The inquiry report dated 01.09.2018 was given to the Appellant by the Department on 14.09.2018 for her submission/ representation. After considering her submission/ representation, ICC's comments and the Respondent's comments, the Competent Authority disposed of the Complaints on 18.02.2019. This order contains the complete narration of facts pertaining to the issues raised by the Appellant in her representations.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had recently observed that Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
In this regard, the Commission referred to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab And Sind Bank vs Durgesh Kuwar on 25 February, 2020 in Civil Appeal No 1809 of 2020(Arising out of SLP(C) No 11985 of 2019) wherein the Apex Court upheld the verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had quashed an order of transfer of a woman bank employee who had levelled allegations of sexual harassment against her senior officer. The relevant Para of the decision are as under:-
20. "The Act was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at the workplace as well as for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business."
24. "This is symptomatic of a carrot and stick policy adopted to suborn the dignity of a woman who is aggrieved by unfair treatment at her workplace. The law cannot countenance this. The order of transfer was an act of unfair treatment and is vitiated by malafides."
The Commission also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A. K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625 wherein while reiterating the Visakha Ruling, the Court held as under:-
"There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of work, results in violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty the two most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.... In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated...."Page 6 of 12
The Commission would also referred to the observations made by R. Banumathi J. in the matter of Mukesh and Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors (the Nirbhaya Case) Criminal Appeal Nos. 607-608 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 3119-3120 of 2014) and Criminal Appeal No. 609-610 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 5027-5028 of 2014) dated 05.05.2017, wherein while affirming the death sentence awarded to the accused persons, several pertinent observations relating to Crimes against Women and Gender Justice were made. The relevant extract of the decision is mentioned as under:
"506. The incident of gang-rape on the night of 16.12.2012 in the capital sparked public protest not only in Delhi but nation-wide. We live in a civilized society where law and order is supreme and the citizens enjoy inviolable fundamental human rights. But when the incident of gang-rape like the present one surfaces, it causes ripples in the conscience of society and serious doubts are raised as to whether we really live in a civilized society and whether both men and women feel the same sense of liberty and freedom which they should have felt in the ordinary course of a civilized society, driven by rule of law. Certainly, whenever such grave violations of human dignity come to fore, an unknown sense of insecurity and helplessness grabs the entire society, women in particular, and the only succour people look for, is the State to take command of the situation and remedy it effectively.
507. The statistics of National Crime Records Bureau which I have indicated in the beginning of my judgment show that despite the progress made by women in education and in various fields and changes brought in ideas of women's rights, respect for women is on the decline and crimes against women are on the increase. Offences against women are not a women's issue alone but, human rights issue. Increased rate of crime against women is an area of concern for the law-makers and it points out an emergent need to study in depth the root of the problem and remedy the same through a strict law and order regime. There are a number of legislations and numerous penal provisions to punish the offenders of violence against women. However, it becomes important to ensure that gender justice does not remain only on paper.
508. We have a responsibility to set good values and guidance for posterity. In the words of great scholar, Swami Vivekananda, "the best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment of its women." Crime against women not only affects women's self esteem and dignity but also degrades the pace of societal development. I hope that this gruesome incident in the capital and death of this young woman will be an eye-opener for a mass movement "to end violence against women" and "respect for women and her dignity" and sensitizing public at large on gender justice. Every individual, irrespective of his/her gender must be willing to assume the responsibility in fight for gender justice and also awaken public opinion on gender justice. Public at large, in particular men, are to be sensitized on gender justice. The battle for gender justice can be won only with strict implementation of legislative provisions, sensitization of public, taking other pro-active steps at all levels for combating violence against women and ensuring widespread attitudinal changes and comprehensive change in the existing mind set. We hope that this incident will pave the way for the same."Page 7 of 12
The Commission also referred to the proviso to Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 which reads as under:-
"Provided that information may be disseminated regarding the justice secured to any victim of sexual harassment under this Act without disclosing the name, address, identity or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the aggrieved women and witnesses."
In the context of providing her own information to the information seeker, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the Page 8 of 12 fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest.
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question." In the context of providing the copy of the letters and note sheets, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India vs. R.S. Khan WP (C) No. 9355 of 2009 and CM No. 7144 of 2009 dated 07.10.2010 wherein it was held as under:
"This Court concurs with the view expressed by the CIC that in the context of a government servant performing official functions and making notes on a file about the performance or conduct of another officer, such noting cannot be said to be given to the government pursuant to a 'fiduciary relationship' with the government within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. The Union of India cannot rely upon Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, to deny information to the Petitioner in the present case. This Court finds no merits in any of the apprehensions expressed by the CPIO in the order rejecting the Respondent's application with reference to either Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. The disclosure of information sought by the Petitioner can hardly endanger the life or physical safety of any person. There must be some basis to invoke these provisions. It cannot be a mere apprehension. As regards Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, there is no question that nothings made in the files by government servants in discharge of their official functions is definitely a public activity and concerns the larger public interest. In the present case, Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act was wrongly invoked by the CPIO and by the Appellate Authority to deny information to the Respondent."
Furthermore, in a recent decision the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 12.02.2018 in W.P.(C) 7845/2013 (Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India) had held as under:
10. The contention that notings made by a junior officer for use by his superiors is third party information, which requires compliance of Section 11 of the Act, is unmerited. Any noting made in the official records of the Government/Public Authority is information belonging to the concerned Government/Public Authority. The question whether the information relates to a third party is to be determined by the nature of the information and not its source. The Government is not a natural person and all information contained in the official records of the Government / public authority is generated by individuals (whether employed with the Government or not) or other entities. Thus, the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course Page 9 of 12 of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.
11. Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.
It was also observed that as per Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 all such information relating to the name and designation of officers in the note sheets/ correspondences could be severed to provide the remaining information. In this context, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 7/10/2013 [W.P. (C) 4079/2013 Union Public Service Commission vs. G S Sandhu] wherein while observing that denial of notings altogether was not justified directed to block the name, designation or any other indication which disclose or tend to disclose the identity of author, it was held as under:
"11. In my view, the apprehension of the petitioner that if the identity of the author of the file notings is revealed by his name, designation or in any other manner, there is a possibility of such an employee being targeted, harassed and even intimidated by the persons against whom an adverse noting is recorded by him on the file of UPSC, is fully justified. Though, ultimately it is for the members of the UPSC who are to accept or reject such notings, this can hardly be disputed that the notings do play a vital role in the advice which UPSC ultimately renders to the concerned department. Therefore, the person against whom an adverse advice is given may hold the employee of UPSC recording a note adverse to him on the file, responsible for an adverse advice given by UPSC against him and may, therefore, harass and sometime even harm such an employee/officer of UPSC, directly or indirectly. To this extent, the officers of UPSC need to be protected. However, the purpose can be fully achieved by blocking the name, designation or any other indication which would disclose or tend to disclose the identity of the author of the noting. Denying the notings altogether would not be justified when the intended objective can be fully achieved by adopting such safeguards."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of KVS v. CIC and Anr. W.P.(C) 6892/2009 dated 15.09.2009 while upholding the decision of the Commission had held as under:
"The only objection raised by the petitioner against the supply of statement of witnesses was under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said provision stipulates that information disclosure of which would endanger life and physical safety of any person or identity, the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement and security purposes need not be supplied. The Information Commissioner keeping in mind Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has directed that the name of the witnesses need not be disclosed to the respondent No.2.
In fact the order passed by the Information Commissioner seeks to rely upon section 10, which permits withholding of certain portions of information by applying severability principle. The order of the Information Commissioner takes care of the apprehension of the petitioner."Page 10 of 12
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of strong observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 and to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at the workplace as well as for prevention and redressal of such complaints in the matter of Punjab And Sind Bank vs Durgesh Kuwar on 25 February, 2020 in Civil Appeal No 1809 of 2020(Arising out of SLP(C) No 11985 of 2019) and considering the sensitivity involved in the matter as also the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013, the Commission instructs the Secretary, Department of Space to have this matter examined through an officer of an appropriate seniority and furnish the complete information to the Appellant in her own case as sought in the RTI application following the procedure laid down under the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email (Email: [email protected]). The Respondent is also instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email (Email: [email protected]).
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 30.06.2020
Page 11 of 12
Copy to:-
1. Dr. K. Sivan, Secretary, Indian Space Research Organisation, Department of Space, Antariksh Bhawan, New BEL Road, Bengaluru - 560231
2. Ms. Sandhya Venugopal Sharma, Jt. Secretary and First Appellate Authority, Department of Space, Antariksh Bhawan, New BEL Road, Bengaluru - 560231 Page 12 of 12