Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 4 May, 2021
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2019/635642
Shri Pankaj Kumar ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
Narora, Bulandshar
Date of Hearing : 03.05.2021
Date of Decision : 04.05.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.12.2018
PIO replied on : 10.01.2019
First Appeal filed on : 15.01.2019
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint dated : 09.03.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.12.2018 seeking information on the following 2 points:-
1.Provide scanned/soft/xerox copies of screening committee reports for screened in & screened out employees for interview for Scientific assistant/C from Scientific assistant/B based on confidential reports /annual performance assessment reports (APAR) from year 2007 to year 2011 in BARC Mumbai,BARC Tarapur, BARC kalpakkam,BARC Vizag..
2.1.Provide scanned/soft/xerox copies of screening committee reports for screened in & screened out employees for interview for Scientific assistant/C from Scientific assistant/B based on confidential reports /annual performance assessment reports (APAR) from year 2007 to year 2011 in NAPS,MAPS,RAPS 1-8,KGS 1&2 ,KGS 3&4,NPCIL HQ mumbai,TAPS 1&2,TAPS 3&4,KAPS 1 &2,KAPS 3& 4, kudankulam site of nuclear power corporation of india limited(NPCIL).
The PIO vide letter dated 10.01.2019 provided information to the Appellant.
Page 1 of 2Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.01.2019. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the Commission's record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Later, the hearings were held in audio conference mode after informing both the parties, in view of the rapid increase in Covid-19 infections.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that his own APAR gradings were not disclosed by the Public Authority till the time the concerned FAA prior to his retirement pronounced his decision on 23.11.2020 after a delay of almost two years. He further stated that complete and satisfactory information was not provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 10.01.2019.
The Respondent represented by Shri Bharat Bhushan Upadhyay, NPCIL, Bulandshahr participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that complete information as per their records was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 10.01.2019.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Moreover, on perusal of the records, the Commission observes that despite being personal information of third party employees, the scanned copy of screening committee reports for Screened In and Screened Out employees for interviews for Scientific Assistant 'C' was provided by the CPIO which otherwise qualifies as being exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2