Shiva Ram vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2024

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shiva Ram vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2024

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका

                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067



ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.   CIC/BSNLD/A/2023/651383

Shri Shiva Ram                                                ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                     ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Date of Hearing                        :   28.06.2024
Date of Decision                       :   28.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         21.05.2023
PIO replied on                    :         20.06.2023
First Appeal filed on             :         14.07.2023
First Appellate Order on          :         09.08.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :         Nil

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-

1. It is requested to convey the reasons why Sh.Sumeet Doshi AGM Banswara OA not transferred from Banswara OA to other circle as per transfer policy of BSNL, even he is in longest stay list (It is learnt that more than 24 years' service he is in same station that is at Banswara.).

The Transferred list for longest stay of AGMs regular already released vide order dated 12.05.2023 by Corporate office New Delhi. It seems there may corruption at any end of BSNL. Also so many administrative (administrative complaints up to Honourable Director HR Level, BSNL Board New Delhi) /vigilance(Complaints of vigilance up to CVO BSNL, New Delhi, GM Vigilance Jaipur & others )etc. complaints (for framing illegal chargesheet with melafide intension and punishment illegally with melafide intension without any written complaints without any misconducts etc. by me. The Vigilance and Administrative complaints against Shri Sumeet Doshi AGM Banswara OA including complaints of other the then officers of Banswara OA, the then officers Udaipur BA and the then officers of Circle office, Jaipur)against them.

Page 1 The CPIO(Per.-HR) & Jt GM (Pers.), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.06.2023 replied as under:-

The information sought is interrogatory in nature and in the form of query. It also attempts to seek clarification and as such does not qualify as information under section 2(f) of RTI Act.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 09.08.2023 stated as under:-

"It is observed that the information sought is third party information held in fiduciary capacity, therefore cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.

Accordingly the CPIO has appropriately replied to the original RTI dated 21/05/2023 vide letter dated 20/06/2023. No further action is required."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 18.06.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Jt. GM(Pers), BSNL, New Delhi- participated in the hearing.

The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that contents of the instant RTI Application do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarifications/inferences/reasons from the CPIO. Furthermore, the information sought by the PIO is personal information of third party and same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, 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.

Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the Page 2 RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.



                                                                  ह रालाल साम रया)
                                               Heeralal Samariya (ह           रया

Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission