Central Information Commission
Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi vs Technology Development Board on 24 June, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File nos.: (As per annexure)
In the matter of:
Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi
...Appellant/Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Technology Development Board (TDB)
Wing-A, Ground Floor, Vishwakarma Bhawan,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110016
...Respondent
Date of Hearing: 19/06/2020 Date of Decision: 19/06/2020 File Nos. RTI CPIO First Appeal FAA Order Second application replied on filed on dated Appeal/Complaint filed on Dated 1.109447 11/12/2018 10/01/2019 16/01/2019 15/02/2019 28/02/2019 2.603983 30/01/2019 Not on Record 08/03/2019 05/04/2019 02/03/2019 3.635440 05/01/2019 04/02/2019 05/02/2019 01/03/2019 06/03/2019 4.635593 08/02/2019 07/03/2019 09/03/2019 05/04/2019 08/03/2019 5.637034 30/01/2019 28/02/2019 01/03/2019 20/03/2019 29/03/2019 6.637900 08/02/2019 07/03/2019 09/03/2019 08/04/2019 09/04/2019 7.638248 13/03/2019 11/04/2019 12/04/2019 Not on Record 13/04/2019 8.647810 28/05/2019 24/06/2019 29/06/2019 22/07/2019 09/08/2019 9.649176 21/05/2019 18/06/2019 21/06/2019 18/07/2019 27/08/2019 10.659983 16/10/2019 14/11/2019 18/11/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 11.661603 11/11/2019 18/12/2019 21/12/2019 16/01/2020 24/01/2020 1 The following were present:
Appellant/Complainant: Present over VC Respondent: Smt. Nalini Negi, CPIO, Dr. Banusri Velpandian, Legal Consultant and CPIO's representative, Shri Navneet Kaushik, Scientist-E, TDB and CPIO's representative, present over VC Information Sought:
File No. CIC/MOSAT/A/2019/109447 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Extracts of the Minutes of the 62 and 63 Board Meeting and subsequent Sub-Committee meeting wherein approval on extension and increment of contract employees was given and action taken thereof.
2. Extract of Minutes of Performance Review Committee meeting held in Dec, 2017. The applicant has been graded as Very Good and it is understood that the committee approved some financial reward for this category. Please inform the action taken.
3. Letter dated 22/04/2018 mentioned about the inquiry by CVC and Vigilance Cell, DST. Provide copy of rules under which these agencies investigate anonymous/pseudonymous complaints.
4. Confirm on findings of investigation conducted by CVC and Vigilance Cell DST. If not, the reason thereof.
5. And various other information.
File No. CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/603983 The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of the advertisement published by TDB for recruitment to the post of Scientists. Specify the age limit. Confirm whether Preeti Sahai, who was working on contract, had applied for the said post. If yes, proof of age and CV be provided.
2. It is understood that Preeti Sahai, who has been granted regular position in TDB by Bindu Dey, has given approval of the amount of HBA of Rs. 25.00 lakh to Bindu Dey. Specify whether she is competent enough for the same or she just compensated for her appointment. Rules under which Bindu Dey was sanctioned amount of HBA, her being on deputation.
3. It is said that Preeti Sahai has availed LTC from TDB in 2018 while she was regularised by Bindu Dey in late 2017. Mention the applicable rules 2 under which she has availed LTC before completion of her probation.
Provide copy of relevant note portion wherein she made a request and approval was granted.
4. And various other information.
File No. CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/635440 The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Details of appointments made by Bindu Dey including date of joining of the candidate, with extensions if any, increment granted, tenure in TDB etc. .
2. Copy of note on which approval for extension and increment of employees appointed by Bindu Dey has been taken.
3. Copy of approval of Chairman, TDB allowing Bindu Dey to purchase a mobile phone in her official capacity.
4. And various other information.
File No. CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/635593 The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of approval of Board and note for constitution of Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC).
2. Details of Project recommended by DRC for settlement with amount.
Provide copy of approval of Sub-committee and copy of acceptance by Board against each DRC meeting.
3. Details of DoS and OTS and other agreements signed with defaulted companies based on the recommendations of DRC with outstanding amount, penalty, waiver, etc. with specific approval of the Board be provided.
4. And various other information.
File No. CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/637034 The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of the advertisement issued by TDB for temporary post of Scientist and TA. Details of candidates including qualification, experience, previous employer with tenure, last pay drawn and current salary etc. who appeared for interview for the said post and copy of report of the Selection Committee.3
2. Copy of approval of Chairman, TDB on extension of tenure of employees appointed against temporary post. In his initial approval he had specifically mentioned the post as purely temporary for not more than 1 year.
3. Copy of advertisement issued by TDB for the post of ALO. Details of candidates including qualification, experience, previous employer with tenure, last pay withdrawn and current salary etc. who appeared for interview for the said post and copy of report of the Selection Committee.
4. And various other information.
File No. CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/637900 The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Extracts of Minutes of all the Board meetings in which matter of Grasim was discussed.
2. Copy of letter received from DST conveying views of the then MoS for S&T and ES on TDB funding to Grasim.
3. Details of total project cost and assistance sought by the company as per proposal, recommended by PEC, recommended by Due Diligence Agency with detailed recommendation and final sanction by the Board.
4. And various other information.
File No. CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/638248 The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of Vigilance Complaint mentioned in his suspension letter dated 22/04/018.
2. Report of the Internal Inquiry Committee.
3. Copy of the letter allegedly written by one Mr. Rajeev Bharadwaj of A-
Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi 110023, with internal marking of CVC which has been claimed to have been sent to the resident of Bindu Dey.
4. And various other information.
4File No. CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/647810 The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the copy of the report of the Committee for EOC in 2016-17 along with action taken on its recommendations.
2. Provide certified signed copy of the contract entered into between the appellant and TDB for 2017 & 2018
3. Provide copy of relevant note sheet towards payment of medical allowance to contract employees after September, 2018 to till date. If not, provide the reason thereof with relevant copy of the decision.
4. And various other information.
File No. CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/649176 The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of proposal submitted by M/s Prahari Security Services in the month of Sept.-Oct. 2007 for providing manpower in TDB.
2. Provide copy of TDB's official communication in reply to above proposal of M/s Prahari.
3. And various other information.
File No.: CIC/TDEVB/A/2019/659983 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the tender notice published for hiring of manpower supply agency along with details of bids received, copy of note for constitution of bid opening committee, minutes of the Committee and its approval.
2. Provide the details of selected third party manpower supply agency including name, address, experience in supplying manpower to government departments and other details of agency along with relevant note wherein existing directly paid staff were posted through the agency.
3. Provide the compiled details of staff including name, designation, tenure in TDB etc, who have been placed through the third party agency w.e.f. April, 2019.
4. And various other information.5
File no: CIC/TDEVB/A/2020/661603 The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Confirm if approval of Secretary, DST, in his capacity as Chairman, TDB was solicited by Bindu Dey before or after issuance of suspension of 15 employees vide letter dated 22.04.18 wherein charges of corruption were imposed on her.
2. Details of action taken by DST with relevant note portion on his representation dated 01/05/2018 submitted to Secretary, DST as Chairman, TDB.
3. Details of action taken by DST with relevant note portion on his representation dated 04/05/2018 forwarded by the office of Hon'ble Minister for S&T and ES to Secretary, DST for necessary action
4. And various other information.
Grounds for Second Appeals/Complaints The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant/Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
At the outset it is relevant to mention here that the appellant's written submissions were summarised for brevity. Moreover, repetition and irrelevant submissions were not recorded.
In respect of case no. 109447, the appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He submitted that there were Vigilance complaints made against Dr. Bindu Dey, the then Secretary, TDB vide letter dated 22.01.2018 to CVC and CVO, DST wherein corruption charges in appointment and use of official vehicle were imposed. He further submitted that he received letters from CVC and Vigilance Cell, DST requesting to confirm launching a Vigilance Complaint dated 22.01.2018. He further submitted that he denied in writing vide letter dated 16.04.2018 about making such a complaint. He further submitted that the CVO, DST allowed Dr. Bindu Dey to get a copy of the complaint in an illicit manner on 20.04.2018 at around 4:30-5:00 pm. Dr Bindu Dey suspended 15 employees vide order dated 22.04.2018 while allegation of corruption was imposed on her only. He further submitted he lost some of his personal belongings in the office alongwith Rs 10,000 cash which was not 6 returned by the officials. An internal Enquiry Committee was constituted vide order dated 22.04.2018 while his suspension letter says enquiry is by CVC and Vigilance Cell, DST. He further submitted that the Vigilance Cell, DST in reply to his RTI application vide letter dated 17.09.2018 denied receiving any request from TDB for investigation as the matter was closed upon receipt of his denial letter. He further submitted that no opportunity was granted for being heard before suspension though the complaint was not against him. He submitted various requests through representations (dated 01.05.18, 04.05.18, 20.09.18 and 01.11.18) He also submitted that various e-mails and letters were also sent but neither any action was taken nor any reply was provided to him. TDB vide order dated 05.05.18 informed that "said suspension is "pending fair and transparent enquiry" and to avoid any manipulation of available data and documentary evidence. This functional suspension would continue till the enquiry is completed and report submitted to the competent authority. The Internal Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 08.06.2018. Later he along with 4 others were terminated from their 10-13 years long services vide order dated 05.09.2018. He further submitted that these terminated employees have filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the information sought via these RTIs will strengthen his case. He further submitted that none of the effected suspended employees was provided with a copy of the Report of the Enquiry Committee. He summed up stating that the inaction of the organisations (TDB/DST) on his requests through e-
mails/letters/representations had compelled him to take the RTI route to get information on his suspension/enquiry/termination but despite this he could not get access to several types of information such as memo of charges/copy of complaint/report of Inquiry Committee as these organisations are intentionally harassing/torturing him even after termination from service. He also pointed out that he could only get "copy of complaint dated 22.01.2018 addressed to CVC" through intervention of Hon'ble CIC in file no. CIC/TDEVB/A/2018/167684 in the hearing dated 24.10.2019 while he was suspended on 22.04.2018 and terminated on 05.09.2018 based on this complaint.
In respect of the RTI application dated 11.12.2018, CIC case no 109447 he contested the replies in respect of points no.11,12,13,14,15 and 18. The grounds mentioned by the appellant for contesting the CPIO's reply in respect of points no. 11,12 and 13 is that the vigilance complaint in question was made against Secretary, TDB and she had no authority to take action in the matter 7 but she became a judge in her own case and took every decision. Moreover Rule 17 (1) of TDB Rules does not provide any authority to Secretary, TDB to become a Judge in her own case. That two employees namely, Smt. Sangeeta Chauhan and Pardeep Kumar were re-instated while they had also filed writ in the Court and annexed the very same document. He further submitted that five employees filed writ petition, 3 out of the 5 employees including the appellant were issued showcause notice and later terminated while the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He further added that 2 employees were reinstated vide order dated 20.06.2018. In respect of para 14 of the RTI application he submitted that a wrong and misleading reply was given by the CPIO, with malafide intention of not returning his personal belongings. He submitted that no information was received. In respect of para 15 he submitted that the appeal was also replied to by the CPIO in violation of the RTI Act. In respect of para 18 of the RTI application he submitted that misleading reply was given, though the internal Committee submitted its report on 08.06.2018, still one of the Committee members, namely Shri Navneet Kaushik vide e-mail dated 15.06.2018 asked only 21 contract employees to attend the meeting on 15.06.2018.Video recording was done as per point 8 of terms of reference of Internal Enquiry Committee.
In respect of case no. 603983, the Complainant submitted that he had not received any reply from the CPIO within 30 days of the filing of the RTI application. He contested that the CPIO vide letter dated 05.04.2019 disposed of the first appeal stating that "It is informed that you were requested to deposit additional amount of Rs 88/- towards supply of hard copies (44 pages)"
vide RTI portal on 28.02.2019. He contested that without providing calculation the CPIO uploaded the additional amount on the RTI portal. In respect of case no. 635440, the complainant contested the replies in respect of points no. 4,6,11,12,13 and 15 of the RTI application. In respect of case no. 635593, the complainant submitted that he filed the RTI application asking for information regarding the Dispute Resolution Committee, a committee constituted for settlement of defaulted cases in TDB. He contested the denial of information by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act due to lack of reasoning by the CPIO for applying the exemption clauses. He further submitted that information is being denied as financial malpractices are involved in providing waiver of financial assistance to defaulter companies.8
In respect of case no. 637034, the complainant submitted that the CPIO's reply dated 28.02.2019 is wrong, incomplete and misleading. He contested point no. 8 of the RTI application and stated that there are 4 scientists appointed against 3 sanctioned posts. Selection committee selected 3 candidates, kept few in the reserved panel apart from the selected three candidates. Dr. Bindu Dey appointed one, namely Dr Tarun Jain from the reserved panel. Four scientists are working with TDB on contract as evident from extract of minutes of 63rd Board meeting dated 21.07.2019 and Agenda minutes of Sub-Committee meeting.
In respect of case no. 637900, the complainant submitted that he filed RTI application to TDB, related to loan agreement signed with M/s Grasim Industries wherein a financial assistance of Rs 250.00 crore was granted to the industries. He contested the replies in respect of points no. 1,3,4,5 and 10. He submitted that actually information like minutes of the board meeting, file notings etc. is being denied as there is a lacuna in the process of sanctioning a huge amount of Rs. 250 crore to M/s Grasim without Board's approval and the agreement was signed without Chairman TDB's approval. He further summed up stating that action should be initiated against the CPIO/FAA TDB u/s 20 of the RTI Act as his services had been terminated despite being an outstanding employee for years and a line has been mentioned by US, TDB in his termination letter dated 05.09.2018 which says that "you are found unsuitable" and this has ruined his career. In respect of case no. 638248, the complainant submitted that points no 1,3,4,5,6 and 9 are being contested. He submitted that the Committee was only constituted to look into the matter of suspension of 15 staff and leakage and manipulation of information only as evident from terms of reference of the Committee. Order dated 05.05.2018 of Legal Cell, TDB clearly links the suspension of staff with internal inquiry committee which says "said suspension is "pending fair and transparent enquiry" and to avoid any manipulation of available data and documentary evidence. This functional suspension would continue till the enquiry is completed and report submitted to the competent authority.
In respect of case no. 647810, the complainant contested the reply in respect of point no. 6 of the RTI application. He submitted that it is surprising that the organisation keeps/holds its own information/documents in fiduciary capacity. In respect of case no. 649176, the complainant submitted that he joined the organisation through Prahari Security Services on 22nd Oct 2007 and worked till 9 05.09.2018 till he was terminated. He contested the reply from points 1 to 11 i.e records untraceable as claimed by the CPIO.
In respect of case no. 659983, the appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply in respect of points no. 1,2 and 3 of the RTI application. In respect of case no. 661603, the complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply.
CPIOs submissions:
It is relevant to mention here that the CPIO also submitted detailed written submissions cum explanation and also argued on various points made by the appellant during the hearing. For the sake of brevity relevant extracts and paragraphs were recorded.
The CPIO submitted that the applicant was working with TDB as Office Assistant on contract basis. She further submitted that the real intention behind filing multiple frivolous RTI applications is not to secure information but he is trying to intimidate the respondents due to a personal grievance. He is clearly misusing the RTI provisions. She further clarified that a combined submission has been filed because the subject matter relates to the same appellant, the response was given by the same respondent and many of the aspects encompassing the second appeal and the complaints are either duplicity or are substantially overlapping.
She further submitted that the present applicant has bombarded their small organisation not only with RTIs related to his own services but also related to others in a random manner since he was terminated from his contractual engagement on 05.09.2018. She also submitted that in one of his emails sent to TDB the applicant has admitted that he has taken the RTI route because, he was fed up with the authorities at TDB. He has also threatened the organisation that "he may commit suicide" and the "TDB officers will be held solely responsible for that".
She further relied on an order of this bench dated 24.10.2019 and mentioned that the applicant has misled the Commission in relating his suspension and termination events to the same causal link, which is entirely incorrect. His termination was based on issuance of a specific showcause notice and as per the governing engagement terms. That a writ petition filed by the appellant is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. She further submitted that the appellant has in total filed 58 RTI applications, 53 first appeals and 32 second 10 appeals/complaints before the CIC in the last 2 years. Till date he has sought information pertaining to more than 650 questions. This also includes seeking information against 94 points in 3 RTIs within a span of 3 days. In respect of case no. 661603 she submitted that it was already heard vide case no. 601348 and 635768 on 05.06.2020. In case no. 603983 she submitted that the appellant failed to pay the additional fees as claimed by the CPIO. In case no. 635593 the CPIO submitted that DRC is based on mutual confidentiality of the parties willing to abide by the recommendations. The very nature of the mediation makes it eligible for non disclosure. In respect of case no. 637034 she submitted that the applicant is quoting minutes of 63rd Board meeting, as the matter was pertaining to scientists engaged on short term contract, the number of scientists engaged was mentioned as 04. Since the contract of Dr Tarun Jain was not a part of the agenda, the same was not included in the board meeting. These facts have been twisted by the applicant and the difference in the number of scientists engaged under different contract terms has been projected in order to settle his personal scores. She further submitted that the FAA is now signing the orders on his own and earlier also CPIO if replied to first appeal, approvals were taken from the FAA or was done as per the direction of the FAA. She summed up stating that the applicant never found any shortcoming/deficiency/irregularity in the functioning of TDB when he was working for the organisation. However immediately after his suspension/termination, the applicant suddenly found the organization to have shortcomings of all kinds. The prima facie reason is his termination and through RTI applications he is trying to harass the organisation. She pointed out that the applicant's withdrawal of 20 cases out of 30 cases just a few days before the hearing also reveals that 70 percent of the appeals or complaints filed by him were false and was done with intent to harass the organisation.
For better appreciation by the Commission she placed a detailed list of all the RTI applications, first appeals and a list of second appeals filed by the appellant in the last two years. She prayed that all his RTI applications merit dismissal on account of continuous misuse of the RTI Act.
Observations:
At the outset the Commission finds it relevant to note that a similar matter was adjudicated by the Commission of the same appellant on 24.10.2019, in which it was held as under:11
"The appellant is a contractual employee of TDB who has been suspended vide letter dated 22/04/2018, wherein it has been mentioned that TDB has received a complaint written by four contractual employees of TDB levelling corruption charges on the Secretary, TDB on appointments, misuse of official vehicles etc. The appellant has sought a copy of the said complaint.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him. Giving the background of the case, he submitted that he received various letters from CVC dated 02.02.2018 and 14.03.2018 and from Vigilance Cell, DST dated 12.04.2018 regarding confirmation of a complaint dated 22.01.2018 against Dr Bindu Dey, Secretary, Technology Development Board levelling corruption on appointment and misuse of official vehicle. He further submitted that vide his letter dated 16.04.2018, he had denied in writing both to CVC and DST that no such complaint was made by him and his forged identity has been used to defame him and to ruin his career. It was informed to him that the matter would be marked as pseudonymous and will be closed. It was also informed that neither CVC nor DST will initiate any action on the same as the same was denied in writing by him. However, Dr Bindu Dey suspended 15 contractual employees vide letter dated 22.04.2018 without any reason and a Vigilance Enquiry is proposed to be initiated through DST Vigilance Cell and CVC Cell to look into the matter. He further submitted that as of now his services have been terminated. Against the above said termination orders, he has filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The documents/information as sought vide the aforesaid RTI Application will strengthen his case in the Hon'ble High Court.
The representative of the CPIO submitted that the appellant was working with TBD as Office Assistant on contract basis and his contract was terminated on 05.09.2018. She further submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the appellant by the CPIO in which the requisite information was denied u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Delhi high court in W.P No 6674 of 2018. Later on the appellant withdrew this petition with a liberty to file appropriate writ in view of termination of his contract. As of now, he has filed a writ petition No. 13651 of 2018 on 13.12.2018 which is pending adjudication before the competent Court. To substantiate her contention, the representative of the CPIO relied on various orders of the Commission which are mentioned below:12
CIC/MA/A/2007/00065 File no.: CIC/TDEVB/A/2018/167684 CIC/AT/A/2007/00007 CIC/AT/C/2008/00025 CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 Special Leave Petition No 27734 of 2012.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions and considering the material placed on record of both the parties, the main issue for consideration before the Commission is whether the appellant under the Right to Information Act is entitled to get a copy of the complaint dated 22.01.2018 against Dr Bindu Dey, Secretary, Technology Development Board levelling allegations of corruption on appointment and misuse of official vehicle by her. Among other submission of the appellant, his main contention is that since his contract was terminated on the allegation that he was one among the four employees who had complained against the Secretary, DST even though he had categorically denied in writing that no such complaint has been made by him vide his letter dated 16.04.2018, he has a right to get a copy of the complaint which was supposed to be written by him so that he can use it before a competent Court of law to prove his innocence. On the other hand, the representative of the CPIO submitted that since the matter was under investigation, the information was denied while claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
The Commission concurs with the stand of the appellant as he is rightly entitled to get a copy of the complaint dated 22.01.2018 as it was on the basis of this complaint that his contract was first suspended and later on was finally terminated on 05.09.2018. If the respondent authority had to confirm if the appellant was the person who had filed the complaint dated 22.01.2018, it was incumbent upon them to enclose a copy of the said complaint to the appellant with their various letters from CVC and Vigilance Cell, DST dated 02.02.2018, 14.03.2018 and 12.04.2018 to get the said confirmation. Further, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in his reply dated 14.06.2018 was totally misplaced. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that some investigation was started on the basis of the abovementioned complaint dated 22.01.2018 by Vigilance Cell of the DST or CVC and according to the respondent authority, the appellant is the signatory of the said complaint, then the appellant might have a copy of the complaint or would be aware of the contents of the complaint. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that giving a copy of the said complaint would have hampered the process any investigation. Further, the CPIO in his reply could not satisfactorily demonstrate as to how the disclosure of information would "impede" the process of investigation.13
The Commission finds the following observation of the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 pertinent in this matter.
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO in W.P. (C) 295 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 had held that :
"19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the File no.:
CIC/TDEVB/A/2018/167684 information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h)RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation...............
22. ...........The mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would "impede" or even on a lesser threshold "hamper" or "interfere with" the investigation. This burden the Respondent has failed to discharge."14
Further, the issue of pendency of a writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is also not applicable in the present case as there the question to be adjudicated is the termination of the services of the appellant and the subject matter of this RTI application is the requirement of the copy of the complaint dated 22.01.2018. Hence, Section 8(1)(h) is also not applicable in that situation.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the complaint dated 22.01.2018 to the appellant after severing the personal particulars of any third party that may figure in the complaint. The said direction is to be complied with within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission."
Again on 05.06.2020 the following order was passed in case no. 601351 of the same appellant:
"Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the submissions of the CPIO stating that the appellant has filed multiple RTI application seeking similar information is justified as the information sought on point no.1 of this application has been already provided to the appellant in relation to another RTI application dated 16.05.2018 which was heard and decided by the Commission on 24.10.2019 in File no.: CIC/TDEVB/A/2018/167684. Hence, no further relief can be given on this point. With regard to point no. 2, a proper reply was given on 13.12.2019. On point no.3, the CPIO in her reply dated 08.01.2020 has properly explained the reasons for transferring the RTI application to another Department. However, with regard to points no. 4, 5 and 6, the reply of the CPIO is not proper. Hence, the CPIO, Ms Anita Aggrawal is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on these points after collecting the relevant information from the concerned Departments and for this she can take assistance from them u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act. Decision: In view of the above, the CPIO, Ms Anita Aggrawal is directed to re-visit the RTI application on points no. 4, 5 and 6 and provide a revised reply to the appellant specifically addressing the issues raised by him. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 20 days after 15 the lockdown is lifted under intimation to the Commission. The appellant is advised to restrain himself from filing multiple RTI applications on the same or similar issues, failing which all his cases will be dismissed without going into the merits of each such cases."
In case no. 601348, the following order was passed:
"The Commission also finds it appropriate to caution the appellant to refrain from filing repeated and similar RTI applications as it leads to harassment of the public authority as well as wastes the time and resources of the concerned departments and the Commission. In case any such repeated second appeals or complaints are filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine. He is advised to make judicious use of the cherished statute of the RTI Act in future. The registry attached to this bench is also directed to check the number of second appeals/Complaints filed by the appellant against the same Departments which are still pending with the Commission, covering same or similar issues and list all such matters together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings."
In case no. 123738, the following order was passed:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant had sought a copy of the report submitted by the Internal Inquiry Committee while investigating into a complaint filed against Ms Bindu Dey regarding leakage/manipulation of information from TDB. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that since he was terminated on the apprehension that he was one among the others who had filed the said complainant and therefore, he being the sufferer, is entitled to know what action was taken on the basis of the said complaint including the report submitted by the Internal Committee. To this, the CPIO submitted that the termination of services of the appellant was a different matter as he was terminated after issuance of a show-cause notice to him and due to his unsatisfactory response on the charges levelled against him. However, the complaint filed against Ms Bindu Dey was a separate issue altogether and there is no nexus between the two. He further added that the information sought by the appellant is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence the same was not provided to him. The limited issue before the Commission is whether the appellant is entitled to get a copy of the report submitted by the Internal Committee while investigating 16 the complaint filed against Ms Bindu Dey. On the one hand, while the appellant submitted that he was terminated from the services on the basis of the allegation that he was one among the other employees who filed the above mentioned complaint and on the other hand, the CPIO submitted that the termination of the appellant was purely an administrative decision as he was found unsuitable for the job. The Commission opines that the information sought by the appellant is purely a third party information, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as was rightly stated by the CPIO. Moreover, the appellant 4 himself had denied having made any complaint. For the sake of argument, even if the submissions of the appellant are accepted that he was terminated from the services based on this complaint and he being a related party, even then the information sought by the appellant cannot be shared with him, being exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The entire information sought by the Appellant revolves around the complaints made against an officer of the respondent organisation and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. The CPIO was very right in deciding that this entire class of information was qualified as personal information within the -meaning of the provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this connection, it is very pertinent to quote the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs GIG and others) in which it has held that: " the performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation 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 could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual." The other issue raised by the appellant was that the CPIO while denying the information had failed to issue notice u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act to the third party. Here it is pertinent to mention that Section 11 of the RTI Act does not cast an obligation on the PIO to resort to third party procedure in all cases. Section 11 comes into play only when the PIO proposes to disclose information which is personal to any third party. In the particular case, the CPIO in his first reply had denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence the question of issuing any notice u/s 11 of the RTI Act does not arise.17
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for intervention in the matter." In case no. 635768, the following order was passed:
"Since the information sought by the appellant on this point is purely in the nature of personal information related to a third party, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, no relief can be given to the appellant on this point. Decision: In view of the above, the Commission does not find any scope for intervention in the matter."
The Commission also took note of the fact that the appellant vide his letter dated 12th June 2020 had sent an withdrawal application for 20 cases filed by him out of a total 31 cases and mentioned that this was done in compliance with this bench direction dated 05.06.2020 to refrain from filing multiple RTI applications.
Taking into consideration that the appellant has obeyed this bench order dated 05.06.2020 and has withdrawn some of his appeals which are a repetition of the same subject matter, the Commission patiently heard all the above listed cases, perused the submissions of the appellant in each of the cases and the contentions of the respondent. After thoroughly going through each of the cases, the bench is constrained to mention that the present cases are also revolving around the same issue. It appears that the appellant is aggrieved with his termination from service and is trying to point out flaws/irregularities in each and every functioning of the organisation and the recruitment procedure as well. The Commission finds no scope to provide any relief to the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant if he was terminated from service illegally, should have waited for the competent Court to decide the matter as he has already filed a writ petition. Moreover, the Commission cannot comment on the merit of the decision of the respondent.
In fact, if there was particular information to be given, the Commission would have directed for disclosure, but these repeated RTI applications which have generated from a single issue even after the fact that relief as permissible under the Act was given to the appellant in previous decisions, the Commission finds no scope to further intervene in the matter.
The appellant has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission and it is apparent from his lengthy submissions pointing out in each and every case, the grievance against Dr. Bindu Dey and for termination of service by the Under Secretary holding him unsuitable cannot be redressed 18 under the Act. The CIC is an adjudicating body in case of second appeals/complaints when relevant information is not provided to the appellant. However, in the present cases, how can the CPIO and the deemed PIOs be expected to satisfy appellant, when the appellant is not in search of information but only settling his personal scores against the department by filing multiple , vexatious RTI applications. The CPIO rightly pointed out that till the time he was employed in the organisation everything was fine and since his removal, he is harassing the public authority on the pretext of getting information.
In a series of cases, the Commission has asked the applicants to refrain from misusing the RTI Act. In the present cases both the parties were heard and again the same issue came up which proved that the applicant is only misusing the RTI Act thus no relief can be given.
Decision:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of the relevant case records including the detailed written submissions filed by both the parties, it is noted that on the one hand, the appellant is aggrieved that the requisite information was not provided to him on many points of his RTI applications which gave reason to him to file many more RTI applications as was submitted by him during the hearing. On the other hand, the CPIOs present during the hearing directed the focus of the Commission to the fact that the appellant has misused the RTI Act by filing multiple & similar RTI applications with their organisations. After perusal of the list submitted by the CPIO, TDB enumerating all the RTI applications filed by the appellant along with their subject matter, the subsequent first appeals and the second appeals, it is noted that the appellant has undoubtedly filed multiple RTI applications with the same organisation which more or less cover the same issue. Now, having perused the instant cases filed with TDB who had terminated the services of the appellant. A close scrutiny of the nature of information sought by the Appellant in the above mentioned applications shows that the appellant is seeking all and every information regarding Ms Bindu Dey, the then Secretary, who had terminated his services and action taken on his various representations and most of the RTI applications are worded in a cumbersome manner. These RTI applications appear to be just a way of taking revenge against the public authority for terminating him. The Commission noted that even if the appellant has a justified grievance, the fact remains that the manner adopted by him shows otherwise. All this 19 exercise on the part of the appellant negates the very purpose of the RTI Act. In other words, even if the appellant was having a reasonable cause in filing these RTI applications according to him, the fact remains that the means adopted by the appellant speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI applicants to not transgress the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive, cumbersome and implausible RTI applications. It was observed that the Appellant appears to be harnessing various grudges against TDB on account of his removal from service and in the process, is harassing the public authority by filing mostly cumbersome and repetitive RTI Applications.
In case any such repeated second appeals or complaints are filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine without any hearing. The CPIO is also advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the appellant on the same subject or any related service related grievances emanating from this subject in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission.
With the above observations, the appeal(s) and complaint(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 20 Annexure 1 CIC/MOSAT/A/2019/109447 2 CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/603983 3 CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/635440 4 CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/635593 5 CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/637034 6 CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/637900 7 CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/638248 8 CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/647810 9 CIC/TDEVB/C/2019/649176 10 CIC/TDEVB/A/2019/659983 11 CIC/TDEVB/A/2020/661603 21