Central Information Commission
M Vanisri vs Jawaharlal Institute Of Post Graduate ... on 21 November, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/000063
CIC/YA/A/2015/002564
CIC/YA/A/2015/002695
CIC/YA/A/2015/002639
CIC/YA/C/2015/000253
CIC/YA/C/2015/000247
Date of Hearing : 11.05.2016
Date of Decision : 11.05.2016
Date of Show Cause Decision : 16.11.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Mrs. M V Vanishri
Puducherry
Respondent : JIPMER,
Puducherry
Represented by: Mr. Hawa Singh,
Nodal Officer,
Mr. Felix Raj, Office Supervisor
Mr. Shanmugham, CPIO Admn III A
Mr. Henry Das, CPIO/Audit Wing
Mr. Sekhar Rajan, CPIO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.03.2015, 09.03.2015,
20.04.2015, 12.03.2015,
09.03.2015
PIO replied on : 10.03.2015, 10.03.2015,
26.05.2015, - , 10.03.2015
First Appeal filed on : 13.07.2015, 13.04.2015,
22.06.2015, 13.04.2015
First Appellate Authority (FAA) : 29.09.2015,23.05.2015,18.08.2015,
order on 25.05.2015
Second Appeal/complaint received : 18.12.2015, 18.11.2015,
on 09.09.2015, 18.11.2015
Page 1 of 8
Since all the six aforementioned appeals are emanating from the same
issue and are between the same parties, they are being clubbed
together for adjudication and disposal thereof.
Information soughtand background of the case/s:
CIC/YA/A/2016/000063 The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information against seven points regarding injustice meted out to her husband. She has sought certified copies of minutes of selection committee in respect of recruitments of all Group A officers and Group B administrative cadre posts since 2008; approvals of Director, Selection Committee, President and Governing Body to such recruitments and such other information related to the recruitment.
The CPIO/Admn-I transferred her application on 20.03.2015 to the DDA Office, JIPMER citing that they are the custodian of the concerned information. The P.S. to Director, JIPMER wrote back to the Nodal Officer vide letter dated 28.03.2015 with the information available and the same information was forwarded to the Appellant vide letter dated 02.05.2015. Not satisfied with the response, the Applicant filed a First Appeal dated 13.07.2015 which was disposed of by the FAA directing the CPIO, Director's office and Dy. Director(Admn), JIPMER to provide comments within 7 days, vide letter dated 29.09.2015 . Upon non receipt of any positive response from the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the Commission.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002564 The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about names, postal addresses and email Ids of all the Governing Body Members and Standing Finance Committee Body Members as in 2014-15.
The Superintendent/RTI/JIPMER transferred her application on 10.03.2015 to the DDA Office, JIPMER and the Nodal CPIO citing that they are the custodian of the concerned information. The P.S. to Director, JIPMER wrote back to the Nodal Officer vide letter dated 28.04.2015 stating that the entire list of Statutory Body members is available on the JIPMER website. The aggrieved Applicant filed a First Appeal on 13.04.2015 which was responded by the FAA vide letter dated 23.05.2015 with the standard response directing the CPIO, Director's office and Dy. Director(Admn), JIPMER to provide comments within 7 days. Upon non receipt of any positive response from the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the Commission.
Page 2 of 8CIC/YA/A/2015/002695 The appellant filed an RTI application against six points seeking various information about Audit paras, audit objections, audit slip, audit observations and audit reports for the past five years in JIPMER.
The CPIO, Admn-II(B) responded vide a letter dated 26.05.2015 providing some information against the query 6 of her RTI Application. The CPIO, Internal Audit Wing responded vide letter dated 15.06.2015 providing some information to the appellant. The dissatisfied Applicant filed a First Appeal on 22.06.2015. The CPIO, Audit Wing provided some further response vide a letter dated 24.07.2015 addressed to the FAA. The FAA while disposing of the First Appeal noted that CPIOs of Admn.-III(B) & III(A) Sections and Internal Audit Wing have arranged replies on 23.06.2015, 06.07.2015 and 24.07.2015 which had been despatched to the appellant on 20.07.2015 and 31.07.2015 respectively. However, the appellant still dis satisfied with the information has approached the Commission.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002639 The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information against three points about certified copies of number of applications received, number of applicants selected for interview, number of applicants who appeared for the interview and number of applicants selected to all deputation posts from 2005 to 2015; certified copies of all minutes of recruitments/selections from 2005 to 2015 and such other related information in a tabular format. Upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the applicant filed an appeal dated 13.04.2015 which was responded by the FAA vide letter dated 25.05.2015 with the standard response directing the CPIO, Administration-I Section, JIPMER to provide comments within 7 days. Upon non receipt of any positive response from the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the Commission.
CIC/YA/C/2015/000253 The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about names, postal addresses and email Ids of all the Governing Body Members and Standing Finance Committee Body Members as in 2014-15.
The Superintendent/RTI/JIPMER transferred her application on 10.03.2015 to the DDA Office, JIPMER and the Nodal CPIO citing that they are the custodian of the concerned information. Upon non receipt of any positive Page 3 of 8 response from the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the Commission.
CIC/YA/C/2015/000247 The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information against seven points including certified copies of minutes of selection committee in respect of recruitments of all Group A officers and Group B administrative cadre posts since 2008; approvals of Director, Selection Committee, President and Governing Body to such recruitments and such other information related to the recruitment.
The Superintendent/RTI/JIPMER transferred her application on 10.03.2015 to the DDA Office, JIPMER and the Nodal CPIO citing that they are the custodian of the concerned information. Upon non receipt of any positive response from the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing both the parties attended through video conferencing, while the appellant represented by her husband. Deliberations between the parties revealed that the Appellant's husband had been selected as a welfare officer in the Respondent organisation. However, his order of appointment could not be ratified by the Governing Body till date, though it has been contended by the Appellant that in all other cases of such appointments the power of ratification is delegated by the Governing Body to the Director level. His case has been an exception and thus he has been prejudiced. In most of the cases, the response of the CPIO is observed to be inadequate and that of the First Appellate Authority is just a template with no application of mind at all to the facts of the case at hand. The officials present for the hearing are not aware of the facts of the case and the Commission takes serious objection to such officials being deputed to attend hearing/s who are unable to assist the Bench by providing any relevant information. And despite the order of the FAA, there does not appear to be any compliance of the same by the CPIO. Although some cases herein have been registered as Complaints, in view of the prayers sought therein, it is found necessary that the same are converted to appeals for appropriate adjudication of the same.Page 4 of 8
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission observes that each case has to be dealt on facts of the same and hence the directions are follows:
CIC/YA/A/2016/000063 & CIC/YA/C/2015/000247: The contents of both these cases are identical. The Complaint is converted into appeal, as noted above. Response in these cases was inadequate and despite direction from the FAA, records and submissions do not indicate any action taken by the concerned PIO, Director's office to remedy the same. In fact it is observed that despite being custodian of information, the concerned official did not even attend the hearing. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Designated Officer of this Bench to issue SHOW CAUSE upon Ms. R. Ganga, CPIO, Director's Office, JIPMER, Puducherry. It is further directed by the Commission that the PIO, Director's Office, JIPMER shall provide the requisite information to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, with a copy marked to the Commission alongwith her reply to Show Cause within three weeks of receipt of this order, failing which penal action shall be taken against her for violation of the Act.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002564 & CIC/YA/C/2015/000253: The contents of both these cases are identical. The Complaint is converted into appeal, as noted above. In the instant case while the appellant has categorically pointed out that information sought by her is not available on the website, the CPIO has simply stated that information is available on the website. There has been no further communication from her end to remedy the situation or nor has she complied with the directions of the FAA. The Commission directs that the requisite information shall be made available on the website in terms of the Section 4 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act and compliance report to that effect to be submitted before the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002695: In this case, the Respondents have submitted written comments reiterating their case. The various dates on which information have been furnished have been narrated in detail by the Respondents. It appears that sufficient information has been furnished to the Appellant. The grievance of the appellant therefore could not be ascertained in this particular case.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002639: Submissions have been received from the Respondents in this case which indicate that vide letter dated 05.05.2016 some information has been against the RTI application. Evidently, there has been unreasonable delay in response. There appears to be no explanation on record. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Designated Officer of this Page 5 of 8 Bench to issue SHOW CAUSE upon Ms. R. Ganga, CPIO, Director's Office, JIPMER, Puducherry for causing obstruction in dissemination of information.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Show Cause Decision:
Pursuant to the captioned decision dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Commission, a Reply dated 23.06.2016 was received from the Noticee- Ms. R Ganga, wherein she has stated that in parlance of the files nos. CIC/YA/A/2016/000063 & CIC/YA/C/2015/000247 all the information available with her had been provided. She further clarified that the decision of deputing CAPIO/Nodal Officer to represent JIPMER instead of Ms. Ganga was taken by the Director and hence she was not responsible for her non presence during the hearing. Furthermore, with respect to file no. CIC/YA/A/2015/002639, the Noticee has submitted that all the available information had been duly provided vide letter dated 05.05.2016. She admitted that there was delay in providing the information but explained that the delay occurred on account of office procedure of putting up of file before various officers. She has further sought to explain that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton. She has enclosed a whole set of annexures comprising of information about the List of Members of Governing Body; Director's Office documents and Minutes, Office orders etc. as sought by the appellant.
The Registry of this Bench was in receipt of an application dated 17.07.2016 from the Appellant alleging Non compliance of the Commission's order by the Respondent. In response to the same, the Respondent Noticee Ms. R. Ganga, CPIO, Director's Office, JIPMER, Puducherry has filed another communication dated 17.10.2016 stating in a point wise manner as follows:
CIC/YA/A/2016/000063 & CIC/YA/C/2015/000247 CPIO's comments against each o seven query are as follows:
1. Information sought by the appellant is voluminous in nature, spread over various sources. Collating of such large quantum of information shall lead to disproportionate diversion of limited resources and also endanger safety & preservation of record in question as enumerated under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further information which are readily available have been already furnished to the appellant.
2. JIPMER Act, regulations 2008 enumerates the powers of the competent authorities in respect of deputation, absorption and direct Page 6 of 8 recruitment. The JIPMER Act, Regulation 2008 is very much available in the public corner page of JIPMER website.
3. The Institute has made numerous recruitments in respect of Group A, Group B and Group C posts with the approval of the Director, Selection Committee, President and Governing Body. Such information are voluminous and spread over various resources.
Collating of such information shall cause disproportional diversion of resources as enumerated under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
4. It is hypothetical and generalised in nature and hence cannot be entertained.
5-7. Information sought is voluminous and forms the record of various sources, collecting such information shall endanger the safety and preservation of record of public as enumerated under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Furthermore, the Noticee has stated as follows:
"...Further it is submitted that the appellant Smt. Vanisri is the wife of Sh. M Krishna Rao who has been working as Law Officer in this institution. In the year 2015, Shri M.Krishna Rao applied for the post of Welfare Officer and attended the interview for the said post. The President JIPMER is the competent authority for recommendation of selection of Group A post and no favourable recommendation for selection was made in respect of her husband Sh. M Krishna Rao. Aggrieved by this Shri Krishna Rao filed OA No.800/2015 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and the Institute has also filed detailed reply statement thereto and same is pending for adjudication. The RTI application of the appellant is only to make more facts to the case and inquire about the selection.
In this context, I would like to bring kind attention of the Hon'ble CIC to the fact that the RTI application dated 9.3.2015 and 12.3.2015 were filed by the same appellant wherein the information sought for were repetitive or slightly modified/altered. Such, RTI applications make me to spend precious office hours in answering such similar/repeated or inquiry type questions time and again.
The above act of the appellant clearly shows that she has sufficiently misused the RTI Act for her self-interest, without any public interest involved and for her purported personal motive seeking vengeance against the public authority for denying selection/appointment to her husband Sh. M. Krishna Rao for the post of Welfare Officer..."
The Commission has perused the detailed and voluminous set of documents submitted by the Noticee. The explanations dated 23.06.2016 and 17.10.2016 are self explanatory and require no further elaboration. The Page 7 of 8 Commission notes that the information furnished so far by the Noticee to the appellant and annexed with her explanations had not been made part of Second Appeal by the Appellant. This appears to be a deliberate attempt at concealment of facts, particularly considering the background of the case as discussed by the Noticee vide letter dated 17.10.2016. The appellant and her husband appear to be using the RTI Act to seek voluminous records to avenge the rejection of the appellant's husband from selection to the post of Welfare Officer. In any event, considering that the Noticee- Ms. R. Ganga, CPIO, Director's Office, JIPMER, Puducherry has proved beyond reasonable doubt that information available with her had been duly provided. Even in the case where information was belatedly provided, she admitted the same honestly and has explained the cause thereof, which seems quite plausible. Thus no case of denial or obstruction to the supply of information nor even of deliberate malafide of the PIO survives against her. The Commission thus drops the penal action initiated against the Noticee.
No cause of action survives in this case and the case be closed and file be consigned to Record Room.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Page 8 of 8