Central Information Commission
Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi vs Department Of Science & Technology on 8 June, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/MSTCH/C/2019/635768
In the matter of:
Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi
...Appellant
VS
1.Scientist - E & CPIO
IDP of (TDT) Division
Department of Science & Technology (DST)
Technology Bhawan, New Mehrauli Marg, Delhi - 110016
2. CPIO / Dy. Secretary (Vigilance Unit)
Department of Science & Technology
Technology Bhawan, New Mehrauli Marg, Delhi - 110016
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 05/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 16/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 05/02/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 08/03/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 12/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 05/06/2020 Date of Decision : 05/06/2020
NOTE: Based on the submissions of the complainant that all his cases including the complaints listed for hearing today may be considered as Second Appeals, the Commission is converting the present complaint into a Second Appeal.
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Ms Anita Aggarwal, Scientist E & CPIO, Shri Manoj Kumar, Director & CPIO, Shri Sowmendra Chandra, DS(Vig), all representing DST 1 alongwith Ms Nalini Negi, Navneet Kaushik, Scientist E and Dr. Banusri Velpandian, Legal Consultant, representing TDB, all heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Various vigilance complaints were filed in the Deptt. regarding the acts of corruption and irregularities committed by Dr. Bindu Dey, the then Secretary, Technology Development Board (TDB). In regard to the same the complainant has sought the details of action taken, with relevant note portion about constitution of the Committee in this behalf.
Number of Committee meetings held with report of the Committee. If not, the reasons thereof. Also confirm whether Vigilance Clearance has been given to her, if yes, copy of the same.
2. Copy of the complaints filed by Dr.Bindu Dey against TDB Officials for irregularities committed by them.
3. Dr.Bindu Dey has made drastic decisions by overruling Board and signed agreements with the companies like Grasim, Abilities Piston, Kan Biosys, Perfect Infra etc. and granted them crores of rupees out of public fund for her personal gain. This has been in the notice of Secretary, DST, being Chairman, TDB. Complainant has sought details and relevant note portion of action taken on the said irregularities committed by Dr.Bindu Dey.
4. And various other information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO has provided wrong, misleading and manipulated information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO particularly on points no. 1, 8 and 11 of the RTI application as misleading and contradictory replies were given to him. For point no. 1, he stated that the denial of the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was not proper as the report was already shared with CVC and Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the information was also denied u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act but no notice was issued to the third party. With regard to point no. 8, he submitted that since the information was available with DBT, the matter was to be 2 forwarded to them but the same was not done. He also stated as per the DBT's letter dated 02.07.2019, DBT was not consulted before sanctioning House Building Advance(HBA) to Dr. Bindu Dey. However, a letter dated 26.11.2018 for Ex-post facto approval was sent by TDB to DBT but DBT vide OM dated 07.12.2018 requested TDB to clarify under which rule Ex-post facto approval of was sought as the permission for HBA in any case is granted prior to sanctioning HBA to any employee. On point no. 11, he submitted that if the reply of the CPIO is considered to be proper, then why the FAA in his order dated 08.03.2019 transferred it to DBT for providing the information.
The CPIO, Shri Sowmendra Chandra submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 16.01.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO and the FAA's order particularly on points no. 1, 8 & 11 of the RTI application. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that on point No.1, the CPIO's reply and the FAA's order both are contradictory to each other as the CPIO has stated that Dr Bindu was given Vigilance Clearance from DST. However, details of action taken with the relevant portion of Committee Constitution, number of meetings held with the report of the Committee is not held by TDB/TDT Division and on the other hand, the FAA vide his order dated 08.03.2019 had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission does not agree with the contention of the appellant that there is any contradiction between the two CPIO's reply and the FAA's order as in the reply of the CPIO, the CPIO has simply stated that the information regarding the action taken on the complaint filed against Ms Bindu Dey is not available with them and it was simply stated therein that the Vigilance clearance has been given by DST. On the other hand, the FAA in his order has rightly claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
On point no.8, the appellant has sought details about the action taken on the illegal act done for giving an approval of Rs 25 Lacs as HBA to Ms Bindu Dey without seeking prior approval of the Chairman. On this point, the CPIO in his reply had stated that Dr Bindu Dey was appointed as Secretary, TDB on deputation basis. On completion of her deputation tenure in TDB, she was repatriated to her parent organisation i.e. DBT on 24.09.2018, therefore this 3 matter has been forwarded to DBT. The FAA in his order had transferred this point to the DBT for giving the relevant information to the appellant. The Commission does not find any contradiction in both these replies as both have stated that the information is available with DBT. However, on this point, the CPIO while stating that the matter of HBA approval was forwarded to DBT had initially failed to transfer the RTI application u/s 6(3) to DBT which was later on done by the FAA. Further, from the records available with the Commission, it is not clear whether any reply was given to the appellant on this point by DBT or not, nor the CPIOs present during the hearing were able to submit anything in this regard. The Commission expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the concerned CPIO for giving an incomplete reply on this point as when the CPIO was well aware that the information is available with DBT, it was incumbent upon him either to transfer the RTI application u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act or to seek assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act, neither of which was opted for by the CPIO at the relevant time. However, it is observed that the information sought by the appellant on this point is purely in the nature of personal information related to a third party and hence exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Therefore, no relief can be given to the appellant on this point.
With regard to point No. 11, it is again observed that there is no contradiction between the CPIO's reply and the FAA's reply. While the CPIO has stated that no such information is available in TDB or TDT, the FAA in his order had transferred the query to DST u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. The CPIO also explained that since DBT was the parent department, the FAA in good faith transferred this point to DBT considering the fact that the information which was not available with TDB and TDT, might be available with DST. However, from the records available with the Commission, it is again not clear whether any reply was given to the appellant on this point by DBT or not, nor the CPIOs present during the hearing were able to submit anything in this regard. 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.4
However, the CPIOs who have handled the RTI application are cautioned to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and they must ensure that complete replies as per the provisions of the RTI Act are given to the appellant within a reasonable time. Also, it is advisable to have one nodal CPIO to collate all the information from the different sections and sources and provide a comprehensive and consolidated reply to the appellant in one go rather than providing piece meal information .
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5