Central Information Commission
Ajit Singh Yadav vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corp Of ... on 28 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DFCCI/A/2022/628132
Mr. Ajit Singh Yadav ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... तवाद /Respondent
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation
of India Limited, 5th floor, Supreme Court
Metro Station Building Complex, Pragati
Maidan, New Delhi -110001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Date of Impugned Order: 27.02.2023
Date of Hearing: 09.01.2025
Order w.r.t disposal of Non-Compliance: 28.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
ORDER
1. The issue under consideration is the complaint for non-compliance dated 02.06.2023 of CIC's order dated 27.02.2023 in the above matter.
2. The above-mentioned appeal of the appellant, Shri Ajit Singh Yadav was disposed of by the Commission on 27.02.2023 wherein following observations and directions are given:
"Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to seek an affidavit from Mr Ram Krishan Jha, declaring that he had sought Page 1 of 9 the information with the name of Mr.Ajit Singh Yadav as the Appellant in the present RTI Application, within 1 week of the receipt of this order and further wait for 15 days for the Appellant to reply. If the Appellant furnish the Affidavit then the respondent can share the point wise, precise and suitable reply with the Appellant protecting the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of his response under the intimation to the Commission. If he does not give the Affidavit in the time frame given then there is no further intervention of the Commission required.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly."
3. The Appellant vide his letter dated 02.06.2023 reported non-compliance of the above order stating that "It is requested that kindly look into the reply of ---- authority (copy enclosed annexure-1) and see how try to contempt the referred decision by making the issue around while, I have duly complied the referred decision requirement as it is (annexure-2). Given the above it is requested that kindly issue a non-compliance order immediately for which I will be obliged to you."
4. The CPIO, vide letter dated 28.11.2023 had provided the following reply:
"Shri Jha was provided with information by this office in compliance of Hon'ble CIC's order dtd.27.2.2023 & 27.10.2023 on mail dated 20.11.2023(copy enclosed). The appellant Shri Jha has however, expressed his disappointments/allegations rather in a very raw way using foul languages unacceptable under normal administrative parlance in regard to the information provided to him by this office. He has alleged that "the reply provided is riddled with factual inaccuracies and entirely misleading. The respondent authority does not want to disclose the information deliberately like vicious scoundrel".
The undersigned finds the communications (copies enclosed) received from Shri Jha are lacking substance, made without application of mind and lacking required knowledge on the Act and relevant exemption clauses in the RTI Act, 2005 under which he seeks for information. It also shows how he lacks basic knowledge on protocol of communication as he Page 2 of 9 uses phrases which are blameworthy, unproductive and unsavory. In the following paragraphs the undersigned has given the chronology of actions of both the sides in the process of seeking information from and providing information to for a better appreciation of the Hon'ble CIC:
1. He made an RTI application in the year 2022 (11.03.2022) in the name of Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav and asked for information in 48 hours under Life and Liberty as indicated in the table above. This time he asked for the marks awarded to all candidates in the DPC held for inter-cluster promotion from E4to E5 and copies of all APARs of each candidate. As per RTI Act, 2005 ali shareable information was provided to Shri Yadav except for copy of APARS and marks awarded to candidates other than the applicant as the same are exempted u/s 8(e) and (g). Also, his request for providing information under Life and Liberty being non-
substantive was rejected by the PIO.
2. In the same time, he had sought for information in his name in the same year 2022(11.4.22) seeking for the marks awarded to him by the DPC members in the DPC. Accordingly, he had been provided with the marks along with other information through portal on 10.5.22. (Copy enclosed).
3. Then he appealed before the CIC and reached for the hearing in the name of Ajit Kumar Yadav, which was objected to by the PIO before the Hon'ble CIC because, information that was provided to the applicant Shri Yadav was just and complete, can't be relevant to Shri R.K. Jha who was present in the hearing. This is because Ajit Kumar Yadav was asking information on Shri R.K. Jha which was rightfully denied to Yadav.
4. Hon'ble CIC took a lenient view and allowed the case to be heard and passed order that Shri R.K. Jha should make an affidavit that he was actually the applicant Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav and after that the PIO should provide pointwise, precise and suitable information duly protecting the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. But it was found that he made an affidavit with wrong name which was objected to by the administration and he was again denied information very rightfully.
Page 3 of 96. He again appealed against non-compliance and the case was heard. The PIO objected to his actions, which are highly objectionable because, he being uninformed of the consequences of wrong affidavit and indulging in activities such as communicating with raw and unparliamentary languages blaming the PIO and the administration and thus wasting the time of administration and of the Hon'ble CIC, and pleaded for rejecting his appeal. However, the Hon'ble CIC has passed order for making a fresh affidavit so that the PIO can provide him with complete information.
7. He submitted a fresh affidavit and accordingly, he was provided with the information as indicated in the table below.
The table given below gives a detailed position indicating the chronological developments leading to such state of being. The items on which Shri Jha had sought for information and the information that has been provided by this office from time to time (both pre-judgment and post- judgment) is given in a juxtaposed format;
S.N ite information Whether Letter Remarks
o. m asked for/on Information No and
No provided/rej date
. ected. if
rejected the
ground for
the
rejection.
RTI application stage (in the name of Sh. Ajay kumar Yadav) 1 1 Copy of Shri Ajit Provided 1. in the application Marksheet Kumar through received in the assigned to Yadav was portal name of Shri Yadav each not provided on the information is candidate for with the 10.5.22 denied.
interview for information 2. The information inter cluster u/s 8 (e). has however promotion However, provided i.r.o. RTI (E4-E5) Shri Jha was application finance already No.DFCCIL/R/E/22/ department provided 00455 in his name Page 4 of 9 held on with marks 24.02.2022 awarded by the DPC.
2 Copy of rule A copy of Information given /Notification/c circular No. irculer by 640/2020 which mark of dtd.
APAR has 16.10.2020
been given to was
candidates. provided
Copy of all Information On Information denied
APAR of each since pertain Email
candidate to other dtd.05.0
considered for candidates 4.20
this Interview. was denied
u/s 8(g) and
(j)
Copy of A copy of Information given
applicable circular No.
promotion 640/2020
policy. dtd.
16.10.2020
was
provided.
Second Appeal Stage (First Hearing on 24-2-23) Date of Operative part Complied or If not, Remarks CIC of CIC order not the order (gist only) reason 27.2.23 The appellant Information As Shri Jha being the has to make denied Affidavit applicant himself an affidavit the made a wrong that he had made by affidavit.
sought Shri Jha
information in was
the name of indicatin
Shri Ajit Singh g wrong
Yadav and name of
within 15 days the
of receipt of applican
such affidavit t
the PIO should
provide
Page 5 of 9
information
pointwise,
precise and
suitable
protecting the
provisions of
Section 8 of
the RTI Act,
2005 within
15 days.
Non-compliance appeal at CIC (Second Hearing on 19-09-23) Date of Operative part Complied or If not, Remarks CIC of CIC order not the order (gist only) reason To furnish a Yes, he has Marks No information fresh and been assigned pertaining to him correct supplied to and has been affidavit with the suppressed/ where in information copies of denied. Information would be clear on the APARS such as marks that the marks other awarded to others appellant awarded to candidat and the copies of sought the him in the es of APARs of others information DPC and were have been denied for Mr. Ajit copy of all denied under relevant Kumar Yadav his APARS. u/s 8(e), clause of RTI Act, after receiving Remaining (g) and 2005. Also, the past the correct information (j) decisions of CIC Affidavit from pertaining to have been relied Mr. R. K. Jha, him has upon. (Refer CIC the already been judgment in the respondent provided case of Vinay Arora shall furnish earlier as vs. UPSC in File No. correct and indicated CIC/UPSCM/A/2017 complete above at the /122611 (Date of information to RTI stage. hearing 19-07-
appellant free 2018)
of cost, in
accordance
with the spirit
of
transparency
Page 6 of 9
and
accountability
as enshrined
in the RTI Act,
2005 within a
period of 30
days from the
date of receipt
of this order
Now in view of the above it may be appreciated that the actions taken by the CPIO's office and the information provided is just, to the point, timely and complete. There remains no item to be responded to and information that is shareable (repeat shareable) under the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided to him. The undersigned does not see any lacunae in the compliance action taken both by the record holding office and the PIO's office. However, the undersigned as and in the capacity of CPIO hereby raise strong objections for his action unbecoming of an informed citizen and a well behaving Govt Servant before the Hon'ble CIC and seek for permission to inform the higher authority in DFCCIL for his indulgences in regard to the usage of foul language each time he communicates. He barges into the PIO's chamber and resorts to baseless allegations and arguments with legal repercussions/threats having no merit in the case.
In view of the above the CPIO, the undersigned, hereby request the Hon'ble CIC to:
1) reject his plea/further appeal and pass suitable orders treating the action of CPIO is complete,
2) recommend suitable action for the misuse of administrative resources and using foul languages, and
3) allowing the undersigned to write to the higher authority in DFCCIL for suitable action so far as usage of foul languages is concerned.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Ram Krishna Jha present in person. Respondent: Shri S K Panda, Additional General Manager/Admin & CPIO present in person.Page 7 of 9
5. The written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
6. Upon being queried by the Commission, Shri Ram Krishna Jha submitted that he is an employee of Respondent Public Authority. He wishes to seek certain information related to him but was afraid to file RTI application in his name, therefore, the RTI application was filed in the name of the Appellant i.e. Ajit Singh Yadav. But when his second appeal is listed for hearing, he himself has presented the case and the previous Information Commissioner has taken a lenient view in the matter. Shri Ram Krishna Jha submitted that the Respondent has not fully complied with the directions of the Commission. Further, he was harassed at the hands of the Respondent Public Authority.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide letter dated 28.11.2023, complete point-wise reply/information was provided to the Appellant. The Respondent, during the hearing, further apprised the Commission about the vicious conduct of the Appellant in the office premises wherein he uses foul languages, which is unacceptable under normal administrative parlance.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that Shri Ram Krishan Jha is aggrieved that the Respondent has not complied with the earlier directions of the Commission. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that complete detailed point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Appellant.
9. The Commission observes that the orders of the Commission have been complied with by the Respondent. It is an admitted fact that the PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. The PIO can only provide information which is readily available in their records.
10. The Commission further noted the aggressive conduct of Shri Ram Krishan Jha during the hearing. He was continuously arguing even on the turn for the Respondent to make his submission. Shri Ram Krishan Jha kept on interjecting and did not let anyone speak in the hearing. Further, he has not pointed out any specific point where information is not provided to him. The Page 8 of 9 arguments of Shri Ram Krishan Jha are generic and without any bases. The conduct of Shri Ram Krishan Jha is not appreciated, and he is admonished and is directed to be cautious in future.
11. In the instant case, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
12. With respect to the misconduct of Shri Ram Krishan Jha, the Respondent is at the liberty to proceed against him as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Shri Biplab Kumar Choudhary.
The non-compliance petition is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited, 5th floor, Supreme Court Metro Station Building Complex, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi -110001 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)