Central Information Commission
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 20 June, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001309/19313
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001309
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra
10, DEEPAK - A, Anushaktinagar,
Mumbai - 400 094
Respondent : Mr. S. Govardhan Rao
CPIO & Head Personnel Division, BARC 3rd Floor, Central Complex (CC), BARC, Trombay, Mumbai - 400 085 RTI application filed on : 01/10/2011 PIO replied : 30/11/2011 First appeal filed on : 09/12/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 19/01/2012 Second Appeal received on : 24/04/2012 S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Please provide certified copy with the seal of office/official concerned of the:
i) Letter dated 19.04.2011 Copy enclosed.
ii) Letter (Ref. 8/1/2008- Copy enclosed.
HRD&SR&W/(Part)/895 dated 19.4.2011
iii) Letter (Ref. 7 (23) 2011/Vig./60237) dated Copy enclosed.
7.7.2011
iv) Letter of suspension to the applicant issued
by Director, BARC
v) My letter related with me, issued by any Copy of letter No. FRD/A-30/11/78 dated 10.06.2011
official of BARC to anyone after issued by Head, FRD to Director, NRG Is enclosed.
08.06.2011 till date. (Page 1)
vi) Letter issued from CSO, BARC and other Copies of following letters issued by
officials of BARC to Trombay Police CSO, BARC to Police Authorities are
Station, Mumbai regarding on occurrence enclosed (Pages 3):
occurred at 1010, Akashganga,
1) CSO/INV/28/2009/gog2 dated
Anushaktinagar, Mumbai on 13.11.2009 25.11.2009
and 26.11.2009. 2) CSO/INV/28/2009/9203 dated 27.11.2009
3) CSO/INV/28/2009/9610 dated 14.12.2009
vii) All inputs, in any form, from any source Copy of DCSEM/SEC/CSO/04/2009/ 1274 dated received by the Competent Authorities of 26.11.2009 alongwith its BARC, requested for necessary action, enclosures is enclosed. (Pages 3) Page 1 of 5 regarding the occurrences occurred on 13.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 respectively at 1010, Akashganga, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai -400 09
viii) Incident report (Ref.
ocsEM/sEqcso/o4/200g/ 1274 dated 24.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 respectively) prepared by CSO, DCS&EM directed by Director, DCS&EM and forwarded to Controller, BARC.
ix) All inputs available, related with me, in any Since no specific documents are sought, the same form, in any matter, from any source, to any cannot be provided. authorities of BARC/DAE, till date.
x) General case Note Summary of the patient Copy enclosed.
Name -- SM Santosh Kumar Mishra created in BARC Hospital on 14.11.2009 at time 19:33:14 and 01:02:20 his.
respectively.
xi) Information provided (Ref. No. Copy enclosed.
BARC/RTI/2010/04/528/877 dated 7.5.2010) under the RTI Act 2005 on the request No. RTI/ BARC/2010/04/528 dated 26.04.2010.
xii) Information provided (Ref. No. Copy enclosed.
BARRTI/201 1/06/828/1350 dated 20.06.2011) under the RTI Act, 2005 on the request No. R1/BARC/201 1/06/828 dated 7.6.2011.
xiii) The complaint against the SM S.D. Misra and others, against their complaint to the President, Secretariat, New Delhi through BARC.
xiv) The reply submitted by Shri S.D. Misra a No such record is available.
and others, against their complaint to the President Secretariat, New Delhi through BARC.
xv) Letters written by the applicant, to SR&W A copy of letter dated 04.09.2009 received through Section through APO, FRD, BARC, APO, FRD is enclosed (4 pages). Trombay in the period from June 2009 to Nov. 2009 xvi) Letter written by Medical Social Worker of The information relates to personal information, the Dispensary No. 9 of Anushaktinagar, to disclosure of which has no relationship to any public Smt. Poonam Mishra in the month of June activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted & July invasion of the privacy of the individual. Hence, 2009. exempt u/s 8(1)0) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Certified true copy, with the seal of The copies of following letters with endorsements Office/Official concerned, of the action thereon alongwith action taken reports, wherever taken reports or the status report, whichever available are enclosed:
is applicable, along with complete movement details of the letters and the office notes! inputs (if any) received/sent, to Page 2 of 5 whomsoever, on the letters Dated 23.08.2011 and 12.09.2011 Your letter dated 23.08.2011 has been forwarded to
i) addressed to Director, BARC by the DAE for consideration on 07.09.2011. However, as the applicant to revoke his suspension and for contents of the letter dated 12.09.2011 were same as of arrears settlement. 23.08.2011 no action has been taken on that.
ii) Representation dated 15.04.2011, Copy enclosed alongwith reply dated 20.6.2011 under addressed to Director, BARC for the re- RTI (3 pages). assessment of APAR.
iii) Dated 22.03.2011 addressed to Controller, Certified copy of the APAR for the period from BARC for the assessment sheets from year 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010 already provided vide letter 2002 to till date. No.8/3/2010-HRD&SR&W/796 dated 07.04.2011.
iv) Dated 11.03.2011, addressed to CSO, Copy of letter No. CSO/INV/Enq47/09/2011/24206 BARC, regarding police protection on my dated 15.3.2011 is enclosed (Page 1). expense.
v) a) dt. 31.05.2011, addressed to Controller, You were requested vide letter No. 8/1/2008- RC HRD/SR&W(Part)/896 dated 19.04.2011 to submit
b) dt. 15.04.2011, addressed to Director, your explanation. Your letter dated 26.04.2011 was BARC received on 28.04.2011. The explanation given by you
c) dt. 14.03.2011, addressed to Director, was examined and no action has been taken.
BARC seeking transfer in some other group in BARC Trombay, Mumbai -- 85.
vi) Dt. 26.04.2011 addressed to Controller, Copy of the letter no. MD/CHSS/9/13497/ 2010/OPA-
BARC 5269 dated 11.3.2011 from APO, Medical Division is enclosed (Page 1).
vii) Dt. 25.04.2011, addressed to Head, You wanted a copy of complaint and details about the Personnel Division, BARC source of information based on which letter seeking explanation from you was issued on 19.04.2011. It is intimated that the details of the source cannot be disclosed as same would endanger the life or physical safety of a person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement. Hence exempt u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
viii) Dt. 19.07.2010, addressed to Controller, The of the letter are found to be baseless except item BARC about the applicant's grievances, no. 5. Accordingly, no action has been taken on your letter. Regarding point no. 5 is intimated that PRIS for July 2009 had already been released.
ix) Dt. 28.05.2010, addressed to Director, You were requested to approach Police in the matter by BARC CSO, BARC vide his letter dated 03.06.2010.
x) DL 10.05.2010, addressed to Controller, Copy of your letter was forwarded CSO. OCS&EM by BARC. CSO, BARC vide his letter dated 12.05.2010 copy enclosed (Page 1).
xi) Dt. 26.04.2010, addressed to Controller, Same as reply to point no. 2 (vi) above.
BARC.
xii) Dt. 22.04.2010, (Ref :- You were advised by officials of Estt.
FRD/G/406/0373/698) addressed to DEO, II Section to submit a fresh nomination. an. II, BARC, Trombay.
xiii) DL 08.02.2010, addressed to Controller, Since this letter & the applicant is only nature of BARC information to the authority. Hence, no action has been taken.
xiv) IX. 05.01.2010, submitted on 08.01.2010 to The letter dated 05.01.2010 purported to have been the Controller, BARC, Trombay. submitted on 08.01.2010, has not been received in the Page 3 of 5 office of Controller, BARC.
xv) IX. 23.11.2009, addressed to DCP zone (VI) Your letter dated 23.11.2009 was forwarded to DCP, & cc to Controller, BARC Chembur, Mumbai vide letter dated 21.12.2009 under intimation to you.
3. The list of employees of BARC Trombay The information requested by you relates to personal against whom -- information, the disclosure of which has no relationship
a) The disciplinary action was sought in to any public activity or interest or which would cause year 2010 &2011. unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
b) Disciplinary action recommended & Hence, exempt u/s 8(1)0) of the RTJ Act, 2005. initiated in year 2010 & 2011.
c) Punishment rewarded, alongwith the details of punishment in the year 2010 & 2011.
4. The list of employees of BARC Trombay The information requested by you relates to personal against whom -- information, the disclosure of which has no relationship
a) The sanction for prosecution was sought to any public activity or interest or which would cause in year 2010 & 2011 unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
b) The sanction for prosecution is granted in Hence, exempt u/s 8(1)0) of the RTI Act, 2005. year 2010 & 2011
c) The prosecution is in progress in year 2010 & 2011
5. Letter issued from Competent Authority to Copies of following letters alongwith breakup of grant the subsistence allowance to the amount are enclosed applicant with the break-up of amount (Pages 6):
released. 1) Order No. 1/15(4)/2011-vig./8120 dated 26.Q7.2011.
2) Order No. 1/15(4)12011-
viz./ 10587 dated 30.09.2011.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
First Appellate Authority uphold the information provided by PIO and disposed off the appeal.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and appeal disposed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio; Respondent: Mr. S. Govardhan Rao, CPIO & Head Personnel Division on video conference from BARC Studio;
The Appellant states that partial information has been given to him and the information provided has not been attested. The Respondent states that he has provided the information as per records. However, the Appellant points out that it is not stated which authority has given this information nor has anybody initialed these. The Commission notes that that the Appellant has asked for long list of information and offered the appellant an opportunity to inspect the files. He states that he does not wish to inspect the files. It is very difficult to identify what information is not complete according to the appellant. Since the appellant is not willing to inspect the records the Commission now deals with the fact the records supplied to the appellant have not been initialed by anybody nor the name of the public authority mentioned. The Commission asked Page 4 of 5 the appellant to send these documents back to the PIO before 30 June 2012 and the PIO will ensure that these are duly attested copies with the rubber stamp and duly initially by some officer is provided to the Appellant within 15 days of receiving the documents from the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20 June 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP) Page 5 of 5