Central Information Commission
Jasbir Singh vs Bharat Electronics Ltd. on 29 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/AB/A/2016/900005
CIC/AB/A/2016/000012
Dated 23.06.2017
Appellant : Shri Jasbir Singh
Kothi No. 239, Phase VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab- 160062
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL)
405, Industrial Area, Phase- III, Panchkula-
134113, Haryana
Date of Hearing : 23.06.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 21.07.2015
CPIO's Reply : 03.08.2015
First Appeal : 21.08.2015
FAA's Order : 13.11.2015
Second Appeal : 07.02.2016, 13.02.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed two identical second appeals in case Nos. CIC/AB/A/2016/900005 and 000012 in respect of the RTI application dated 21.07.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). Both these second appeals are being clubbed together and disposed of by this Order.
Page | 1
2. The appellant filed an online application under the RTI Act before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Panchkula, Haryana, seeking information on four points for the period 2007 to 2010, including, inter alia, (i) the list of employees of BEL, Panchkula, Haryana, and (ii) the list of employees of BEL Panchkula who took advance for availing the Leave Travel Concession (LTC) and subsequently returned the advance without availing the LTC.
3. The appellant filed two second appeals before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought was denied by the CPIO by claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant is also not satisfied with the Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him.
Hearing:
4. The appellant, Shri Jasbir Singh and the respondent, Shri Devender Singh, Manager (HR and Administration), Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
5. The appellant submitted that the CPIO, BEL, has wrongly denied information on point nos. 1 to 3 of his RTI application on the grounds that the information sought relates to personal information of a third party and hence, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
6. The respondent admitted that they had wrongly invoked the provision of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as the information sought by the appellant in point nos. 1 to 3 of the RTI application was not available with them. The respondent further submitted that the records/ documents pertaining to the period 2007-2010, in terms of the information sought in the RTI application, were not available as they were weeded out in the year 2014, after taking approval of the Competent Authority. The respondent stated that this was effected in accordance with the Office Order No. HO/203/001 dated 27.10.1977, regarding the Preservation of Records of the Finance and the Accounts Division. As per Entry 01 (Leave Applications) under the head of Page | 2 "General Accounts" of the said Office Order, such records are retained only for a period of three years. A copy of the said Record Retention Schedule was also provided by the respondent to the appellant and the Commission to substantiate their claim. The respondent with respect to point no. 4 of the RTI application, submitted that a copy of the Medical Policy valid up to the year 2004 would be provided to the appellant in due course.
Decision:
7. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that in point nos. 1 to 3 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought information pertaining to the list of employees of the BEL for the years 2007 to 2010 along with the details of the employees of the BEL who took the advance for availing the benefit of the LTC Scheme. The Commission also notes the respondent's submissions that the information sought by the appellant in point nos. 1 to 3 of the RTI application was not available with them since it was weeded out in the year 2014, after taking approval of the Competent Authority. The respondent had, therefore, wrongly claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission further observes that the non-furnishing of the information sought was on account of an error of judgement on the part of the CPIO. Hence, it cannot be said that the CPIO had acted consciously and deliberately with mala fide intention to deny information to the appellant. In view of this, the Commission observes that since the records relating to RTI application have been weeded out, as per the Record Retention Schedule followed by the respondent, no information on point nos. 1 to 3 of the RTI application can be furnished to the appellant at this juncture.
Hence, no further action is warranted in the matter.
8. The Commission, with respect to point no. 4 of the RTI application, directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the Medical Policy valid up to the year 2004, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.
Page | 3
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S. S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page | 4