Central Information Commission
Gopi V. vs Central Council For Research In ... on 17 April, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/CFRAS/C/2024/653671.
Shri Gopi V. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic
Sciences.
Date of Hearing : 15.04.2025
Date of Decision : 15.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.09.2024
PIO replied on : 28.10.2024
First Appeal filed on : 28.10.2024
First Appellate Order on : 06.11.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 16.12.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.09.2024 seeking information on following points:
"1. Number of CCRAS employees retired under VRS for the year 2023
2. Designation of the CCRAS employees retired under VRS for the year 2023
3. Number of Assistant director vacancy available in CCRAS
4. The details of authority to accept the VRS of CCRAS employees
5. Number of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the CCRAS employees for the year 2023
6. Office order issued for information technology head of CCRAS headquarters for the year 2014 to 2017
7. Number of employees recruited in CCRAS for the year 2023
8. Number of CCRAS employees deputed for other organization from 2018 to 2023"
The CPIO, Admn. Officer (Estt/Project) vide letter dated 28.10.2024 replied as under:-
"1-2. Three Numbers of CCRAS employees retired under VRS for the year 2023 as per the details given below:-
Page 1 Sl. No Name & Designation Unit name Date of Retirement
1. Smt. Asha Verma CARI, Patiala VRS on 31.03.2023 Hindi Assistant
2. Sh. Sunil Kumar (SC) RARI, Mandi VRS on 30.04.2023 MTS (Safaiwala)
3. Dr. G.V.R. Joseph, Assistant CCRAS, Retired on Vol. Basis Director (Botany), Hqrs. Office, 04.07.2023 (Α.Ν.)
4. Smt. Aarti, MTS NIAPR, VRS on 05.10.2023 Patiala
3. The following posts are vacant of Assistant Director:
Assistant Director(Ay.) 04.
Assistant Director(Pathology) 04 Assistant Director(Pharmacology) 01 Assistant Director(Medicine) 02 Assistant Director(Botany) 01 Assistant Director(Co-ordination) 01
4. As per Bye-Laws, Competent Authority to accept the VRS in respect of CCRAS employees of all posts carrying Grade Pay up to 25400/- in PB-3 (pre-
revised) [Level 10 of the Pay Matrix as per 7th CPC] is DG, CCRAS and in respect of posts carrying Grade Pay greater than 5400/- in PB-3[Level 11 of the Pay Matrix as per 7th CPC] is the President of the Governing Body i.e. MOS (I/C), Ministry of Ayush.
5. NIL
6. As per records available, Dr.G.V.R.Joseph, Ex. Assistant Director(Botany) was looking after the work of Computer Cell w.e.f. 02.04.2014 vide Office Order No.04/2014-15 dated 02.04.2014 till 22.02.2017 and after that Dr.Chinmay Rath, Research Officer(Botany) take over the charge of Computer Cell from Dr.G.V.R.Joseph w.e.f. 22.02.2017. Etc."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2024. The FAA, Director General, Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science vide order dated 06.11.2024 stated as under:-
"The Appellant vide his online RTI application dated 29.09.2024, received on 29.09.2024, respectively, in which he has sought information vide CCRAS's letter dated 28.10.2024.
2. He has preferred online RTI FIRST APPEAL vide Regn.No.CCRAS/A/E/24/00026 dated 28.10.2024, on the ground that provided incomplete, misleading or false information with reference to his ONLINE RTI APPLICATION dated 29.9.2024, which was replied vide Council's letter dated; 28.10.2024.
3. The online RTI FIRST APPEAL has been considered by the undersigned as First Appellate Authority, and to enclose herewith Office Order No.04/2014-15 dated 02.04.2014 and Office Order No.1684/2016-17 dated 22.02.2017. With this information, the Appeal is disposed off."
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 06.04.2025 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. A.K. Meena, ADO, Ms. Mamta Josh, OS, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Consultant, CCRAS- participated in the hearing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that office as sought at point No. 6 of the instant RTI Application has not been provided by the CPIO.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been supplied to the Complainant. They further stated that the office order details as sought at point No. 6 of the RTI Application has been provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007.
The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the Page 3 State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lie. The complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)