Central Information Commission
Kamal Dhingra vs Cimfr, Dhanbad on 6 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/CMRID/C/2023/620888
Shri Kamal Dhingra निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, CIMFR, Dhanbad ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.06.2024
Date of Decision : 05.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.02.2023
PIO replied on : 21.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 23.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 20.04.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. As per previous RTI reply, there is huge expenditure on foreign tours running into many crores by Dr. S.K. Brahmachari. Please provide copies of notings of approval of all (domestic+foreign tours) in r/o Dr. S.K. Brahmachari, Sh. K.S. Vaidheeswaran, former JS(A), Dr. Shekhar Mande, undertaken during their tenure at CSIR Hqrs.
Provide copies of TA/DA bills claim made by all of them in r/o above tours. Full details/Copies of all bills paid (Govt. expenditure done) for all tours in r/o the above officers which include entertainment allowance, TA DA or any other amount paid from the head from Govt. account clearly mentioning full details relating to head, total Govt. expenditure per officer per tour-through digital mode. Also provide details/information in r/o Dr. Geetha Vani, Head HRDG in r/o above.
2. Names of officers who have been working on a particular seat for more than 5 years.
3. Give full details of laptops issued to employees of CSIR Hqrs from the period 2017 to 2020. Copy of criteria/policy/rules followed in allotment of laptops to the employees of CSIR Hqrs. Copy of approved criteria/policy in purchase of laptops i.e. deciding the technical specifications according to work etc. since heavy Govt. expenditure is incurred in purchase of laptop.
Page 1
4. During the tenure of Shri K. Jayakumar, former JS(A), an FIR was filed for a financial fraud detected in CSIR Hqrs (unauthorized debit from CSIR account/fraud cheque issued. Provide copy of FIR, all details related to financial loss caused to CSIR/copies of report of Fact finding committee constituted for this purpose/action taken by CSIR on the detection of fraud, names of persons who were found responsible for this fraud/details of action taken on these officers, status of case as on today/details of money/loss recovered by CSIR, give full details.
5. Since fraud was detected, provide details of award of contract (full financial) details/copies of contract/agreement given to NIIT for conduct of exam related to recruitment of ASO in CSIR during the tenure of Sh. K. Jayakumar, former JS(A). Full Govt. expenditure incurred for the conduct of this exam. Provide copies of all receipts of Govt. expenditure incurred through digital mode. Provide details of all officers chargesheeted in this case (provide copies of all chargesheets issued/all memos). Copies of all administrative/legal notings related to this case. It is probably understood that the contract of recruitment in Govt. service was awarded to a private firm and that too without tender. It is also probably understood that this exam was cancelled firstly due to leakage of question paper, provide full details/all copies of complaints received/give information of all facts. Provide all copies of reports/findings of the fact finding committee.
6. Details of Consultants appointed during the entire tenure of Dr. S.K. Brahmachari, the then DGCSIR and Dr. Shekhar Mande clearly mentioning name of the consultant, appointed on date, emoluments paid per month, tenure of the consultant, copies of appointment orders of all consultants, all copies of notings regarding the appointment of consultants during the tenure of the above officers.
7. In r/o CSIR Hqrs provide case details/details of action taken on those employees who have been found guilty of renting Govt. accommodation from 2007 onwards. Provide names/full details alongwith action taken including providing all copies.
8. Total Govt. expenditure on ERP (enterprise resource planning) done by CSIR i.e. from start of the process uptill today. Give full details of companies that were given/allotted the responsibility to make the software for ERP, Govt. funds paid/being paid to all of them as on today. Provide full details/copies of bills paid of the Govt. expenditure on ERP through digital mode. Give information relating to implementation of ERP in respect of CSIR Hqrs and CSIR Cx. i.e. the processes/work which is done on ERP and inform whether hard copies are taken after initiating a process/work request on ERP, from the Govt. servant. ETC."
The CPIO, CIMFR, Dhanbad vide letter dated 21.03.2023 replied as under:-
Reply:- उपरोक्त विषय हेतु आपका विनाांक 23-02-2023 का आिेिन, जो सीएसआईआर हेड क्वार्ट र द्वारा विनाांक 24-02-2023 को इस कायाटलय को ऑनलाइन स्थानाांतररत वकया गया है, के सांिर्ट में मुझे यह अिगत कराना है वक आपके आिेिन के िाां वित सूचना हेतू इस सांस्थान के सांबन्धित अविकाररयोां को र्ेजा गया था।
इस सांबांि में आपको बताना है वक सांबन्धित अविकारी ने आपके आिेिन हेतु वनम्नवलन्धित सूचना उपलब्ध कराई है:
Point No. 11: Information sought is voluminous. Hence, applicant is requested to visit CSIR- CIMFR, Dhanbad in person to inspect the requested data/facts.
Page 2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 20.04.2023 stated as under:-
"The information requested for sharing being voluminous and spread in different files, would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. So, the information cannot be provided under RTI Act, clause 7. (9).
However, if you feel keenly interested, you are requested to come to CSIR- CIMFR with a prior appointment with Controller of Administration (CoA) to review into the documents. On getting confirmation from CoA, your good self has to deposit the requisite money in advance as per RTI rules for the said visit to review into the documents. This is also to inform that only one person i.e., the applicant will be allowed to review the documents available with CSIR-CIMFR.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the response sent with respect to the query number 11, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Respondent submitted a letter dated 22.05.2024 reiterating the above facts.
A written submission dated 15.05.2024 has been received from the Complainant reiterating the facts as already stated in the Complaint and the same has been taken on record.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Smt. Vandana D Singh - US/CPIO, CSIR, Hq and Shri Sudhanshu Kumar were present during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective queries, wherein the Respondent stated that whatever information is available on record with the public authority, has been furnished to the Complainant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
On perusal of records of the case and upon hearing averments of the Respondent present for hearing, it is noted that information available on record with the Respondent has been duly furnished to the Complainant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant was unable to specify which information had not been provided to him, despite being granted opportunity. In the given circumstances, it is important to note that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, hence the only question which can be adjudicated is whether there was any deliberate or willful concealment of information in this case. From the deliberation between parties and the documents submitted by both parties, it is evident that the reply sent by the Respondent contains adequate and appropriate information and is well within the mandate of the Page 3 RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
It is relevant to note the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. .. the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that since information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in the instant case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)