Central Information Commission
Hari Nandan Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 30 January, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2017/172023
Hari Nandan Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Steel Authority of India Ltd., ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.07.2017 FA : 14.08.2017 SA : 10.10.2017
CPIO : 26.09.2017 FAO : No Order Hearing : 21.01.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), SAIL, Bokaro, seeking information on six points pertaining to the action taken by SAIL in respect of his complaints submitted to CEO, SAIL against officials of SAIL occupying the staff quarters for unauthorized construction, including, inter-alia, (i) a certified copy of the action taken against Shri Prashant Gupta, Technician (HRD), Bokaro Steel Page 1 of 6 Plant in respect of his complaint dated 20.04.2017 regarding unauthorized construction in his quarter, and (ii) a certified copy of the action taken against Shri Anjani Kumar Avinash, AGM (Water Supply), Town Services Dept., Bokaro Steel Plant in respect of his complaint dated 20.04.2017.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that incomplete and misleading information has been provided to him by the CPIO. He contended that the CPIO failed to respond to his RTI application within the prescribed period and also did not provide any document/report relating to the action taken against the officials in the light of his complaint. The appellant requested the Commission to impose penalty upon the CPIO for the delay caused in responding to the RTI application and to award him compensation for the detriment suffered by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Hari Nandan Singh and the respondent Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale, CPIO and Asstt. General Manager (Pers-Rules), Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Jharkhand, attended the hearing through video- conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that incomplete and misleading information has been provided to him by the CPIO. He contended that there was a delay of about 40 days on the part of the CPIO in responding to his RTI application. Further, he also did not provide any document/report relating to the action taken against the officials in the light of his complaints dated 20.04.2017 for unauthorized construction and forcible entery into his house, as sought vide point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. Further, he had also sought information, vide point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI Page 2 of 6 application, regarding the action taken on his letters dated 28.04.2017 and 05.05.2017 written to GM (Town Services), SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, regarding non-supply of water and for supply of a key to the lock of the terrace door. However, the CPIO incorrectly stated that it is a sensitive matter and hence, information cannot be disclosed in public domain. Moreover, he had sought a copy of the original drawing for service line of SAIL Quarters in Sector-4/D in Bokaro Steel City. However, the CPIO informed that the drawing of 'sewer line' is not available with field service section.
5. The respondent submitted that point-wise information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 26.09.2017. The respondent further explained that the information sought could not be furnished to the appellant within the stipulated time owing to the delay on the part of the Dept. concerned holding the aforesaid information. The respondent further stated that since the action taken by the organization against an employee is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Hence, the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the RTI application was not disclosed to the appellant. With respect to point no. 4 of the RTI application, she clarified that the appellant has been informed that the terrace area available in the quarter is common area for all occupants. Further, in the interest of all the occupants of the block, the matter will be pursued for removal of lock from the terrace door.
Page 3 of 6Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that an appropriate response has not been provided to the appellant in respect of point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the RTI application regarding the action taken on his complaints/letters written to various authorities of Bokaro Steel Plant. Moreover, the Commission observes that the appellant has a right to know as to what action has been taken by the respondent authority on his complaints. The Commission notes that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin vs. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., [W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017] had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
11. In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."Page 4 of 6
7. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to provide point- wise information to the appellant regarding the action taken against the officials against whom complaints had been filed by him, as sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the RTI application. The Commission also directs the respondent to provide a copy of drawing of service lines, as available on records, to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. The Commission further finds that the appellant's RTI applications is dated 13.07.2017 and the information has been provided to him by the CPIO vide letter dated 26.09.2017, i.e. after a delay of about a month from the time of receipt of the RTI application. Moreover, the CPIO stated that the Dept. concerned did not furnish the information sought to her in time. The Commission observes that the CPIO cannot escape his/her responsibility by merely saying that it is the duty of his/her sub-ordinates or the Dept. concerned to provide information. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed:
".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow."Page 5 of 6
9. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the CPIO, Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale, Asstt. General Manager (Pers-Rules), Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Jharkhand for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against her.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 22.01.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand- 827001.
2. Shri Hari Nandan Singh Quarter No. 2263, Sector-4/D, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand- 827004.Page 6 of 6