Central Information Commission
Prof. Gayathri Vishwanath Patil vs Department Of Pharmaceuticals on 22 September, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/642181
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/142410
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/146305
Prof. Gayathri Vishwanath Patil .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary & CPIO, Department of Pharmaceuticals
(Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers), Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
O/o. the Director, National Institute of Pharmaceutical
Education & Research (Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers),
E.P.I. Park, Industrial Area, Hajipur, District-Vaishali-844102
(Bihar).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/642181
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 05.05.2022
First appeal filed on : 09.05.2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 04.08.2022
Date of Hearing : 04.09.2023
Date of Decision : 14.09.2023
Page 1 of 8
Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/142410
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 05.05.2022
First appeal filed on : 09.05.2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 12.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 04.09.2023
Date of Decision : 14.09.2023
Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/146305
RTI application filed on : 07.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 05.05.2022
First appeal filed on : 09.05.2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 27.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 04.09.2023
Date of Decision : 14.09.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
(1) नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/642181
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
1. This is in regard to suspension of Prof. Gayathri Vishwanath Pabl, Director of NiPER-Flappur under suspension from 17-01-2020.
2. Provide certified copies of documents / office note / any other relevant material that was placed before the Suspension Review Committee for review, from time to time and the recommendations of Suspension Review Committee thereupon for continuation of suspension of Prof. Patil.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 22.05.2022, as under:
The information sought falls under exemption from disclosure of information which would impede process of investigation/enquiry, it cannot be provided within meaning of provision of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 8
• Dissatisfied with no response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 09.05.2022.
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO, Department of Pharmaceuticals vide letter dated 16.08.2023, as under :
"....I am directed to refer to CIC's Notice No. CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/642181 dated 24.07.2023 and to say that the appellant, who was working as Director, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Hajipur was placed under suspension with approval of the President of India so that free and fair inquiry against her could be conducted. The inquiry proceedings initiated against her by the Board of Governors. NIPER Hajipur are still pending. The period of suspension has been extended from time to time with the approval of the competent authority.
2. Since the inquiry proceedings are still on-going, the information sought by the appellant is exempt from disclosure under provisions of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005. Even otherwise, the orders extending her suspension, which have been duly marked to the appellant, are self-contained and contains the details sought by her. A copy of the last order dated 27th March, 2023 extending her suspension is enclosed for ready reference.
3. This issues with the approval of the competent authority..."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
(2) नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/142410 Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
1. A 2-member fact finding committee was constituted, under Section 11 of NIPER Act 1998, with Dr. V. Nagarajan and Dr. Shashi Bala Singh as Chairman and Member respectively, to find if any misconduct or misdemeanor occurred by the Director of NIPER-Hajipur, Prof. Gayathri Viswanath Patil, that is, me the applicant, who is under suspension from 17¬01-2020.Page 3 of 8
2. Request for supply of relevant certified documents or records exhibiting the ascent of Hon'ble President of India, who is the Visitor of NIPER-Hajipur in regard to -
2.1. constitution of committee to find out the veracity of misconduct and misdemeanor by Prof. Gayathri Vishwanath Patil as cited above in point 1 and 2.2. names of Dr. V. Nagarajan and Dr. Shashi Bala Singh as Chairman and Member of the Factfinding committee were approved or suggested for above point 2.1.
3. Request for supply of relevant certified documents and or records exhibiting the submissions made by the said factfinding Committee of Dr. V. Nagarajan and Dr. Shashi Bala Singh were before the Hon'ble President of India thereupon in the form of Report or findings or evidences or any other material.
4. Request to supply relevant certified documents and or records exhibiting the decision remarks or ascent of Hon'ble President of India on above point 3.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 05.05.2022, as under:
The information sought falls under exemption from disclosure of information which would impede process of investigation/enquiry, it cannot be provided within meaning of provision of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 09.05.2022.
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 16.08.2023, as under :
"...I am directed to refer to your Notice No. CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/142410 dated 24.07.2023 and to say that and to say that the appellant, who was working as Director, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Hajipur was placed under suspension with approval of the President of India so that free and fair enquiry against her could be conducted. The two-member inquiry Committee was constituted under section 11 of the NIPER Act with the approval of the President of India.
2. As the appellant did not cooperate with the said committee, formal inquiry proceedings were initiated against her under relevant provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the Board of Governors, NIPER Hajipur, which are still pending. The period of suspension has been extended from time to time with the approval of the President of India.
Page 4 of 83. Since the inquiry proceedings are still on-going, the information sought by the appellant is exempt from disclosure under provisions of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
4. This issues with the approval of the competent authority..."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
(3) नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/146305 Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
1. A 2-member fact finding committee of Dr. V. Nagarajan and Dr. Shashi Bala Singh was constituted to enquire for any misconduct or misdemeanor occurred by the Director of NIPER-
Hajipur, Prof. Gayathri Viswanath Patil, that is, me the applicant, who is under suspension from 17-01-2020. 2 In regard to above point Pi, provide certified copy or copies of the documents, and or records, and or office note and or any other material related to the 2-member fact finding committee of Dr. V. Nagarajan and Dr. Shashi Bala Singh.
2.1 Proposal moved for the constitution of the Committee. [2.2] Nomination for the constitution of the Committee 2.3 Who approved the proposal and nomination of constitution of the Committee.
2.4 Office order and or notice and or communications made with the Committee members.
2.5 Documents, and or instructions, and or guidelines provided to the Committee and any time line given to them to accomplish the assignment.
2.6 Direction and mode of submission of the Report to the Committee. [2.7] Decision taken on the Report submitted by the Committee.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 05.05.2022, as under:
The information sought falls under exemption from disclosure of information which would impede process of investigation/enquiry, it cannot be provided within meaning of provision of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.Page 5 of 8
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 09.05.2022.
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 16.08.2023.
"...I am directed to refer to your Notice No. CIC/DPHRM/A/2022/146305 dated 24.07.2023 and to say that and to say that the appellant, who was working as Director, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Hajipur was placed under suspension with approval of the President of India so that free and fair enquiry against her could be conducted. The two-member inquiry Committee was constituted under section 11 of the NIPER Act with the approval of the President of India.
2. As the appellant did not cooperate with the said committee, formal inquiry proceedings were initiated against her under relevant provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the Board of Governors, NIPER Hajipur, which are still pending. The period of suspension has been extended from time to time with the approval of the President of India.
3. Since the inquiry proceedings are still on-going, the information sought by the appellant is exempt from disclosure under provisions of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
4. This issues with the approval of the competent authority..."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent No. 1: Ms. Geetha Ashok- US/PIO, Department of Pharmaceuticals.
Respondent No. 2 : Dr. Debrabata Mandal- Asst. Prof. Deptt. Of Biotechnology, NIPER Hajipur The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to her till date. She submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. She requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought..Page 6 of 8
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the information sought by the Appellant is under investigation. The submitted that the inquiry proceeding against the Appellant is still pending and the information sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
Decision:
Since both the parties are same, the aforementioned Second Appeals are clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO, Department of Pharmaceuticals to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 7 of 8 Page 8 of 8