Central Information Commission
Sushama Sarkar vs Bhabha Atomic Resarch Centre (Mumbai) on 25 June, 2021
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/BARCM/A/2019/125282
CIC/BARCM/A/2019/125283
Smt. Sushma Sarkar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
BARC
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2021
Date of Decision : 25.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
125282 21.11.2018 24.12.2018 05.01.2019 27.02.2019 28.05.2019
125283 30.11.2018 28.12.2018 08.01.2019 22.02.2019 28.05.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/BARCM/A/2019/125282 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.11.2018 seeking the following information:-Page 1 of 6
The PIO, Chief Admin. Officer (A), BARC vide letter dated 24.12.2018 replied as follows:
Being dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2019. FAA, Controller, BARC vide order dated 27.02.2019 disposed off the First Appeal with the following observations:
In compliance with the order of the FAA, the PIO, BARC provided a revised reply vide letter dated 06.03.2019.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing A written submission dated 21.06.2021 has been received from the Appellant and the same has been taken on record.Page 2 of 6
A written submission has been received from the CPIO and Chief Administrative Officer (A) vide letter dated 17.06.2021 wherein it was stated that the Appellant in her Second Appeal has requested for providing remaining information viz. Special Contribution Award and Group Achievement Award (by small/ medium sized teams) during 2013 to 2017 as stated in the original RTI application dated 21.11.2018. It was stated that the Appellant was provided with the requisite information after applying the severance clause under the RTI Act as per the directive of the FAA. Information on the remaining three types of awards was also conveyed to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.04.2019. However, in view of the submissions made by the Appellant before the Commission, it was decided to provide the name of recipients of Group Achievement Award by small/ medium sized team by indicating name of the Group Leader and the year of award for the period from 2013-17. Since the Group Achievement Awards contain a large number of officers, only the name of the Group Leader and total number of persons in the group was provided. A regards the names of recipients of Special Contribution Award for the period from 2013-17, it was stated that this category of award was meant for those directly connected with accomplishments in strategic sector of the department hence revealing their names will be detrimental to the public interest and qualifies for exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act. In view of the above it was stated that out of the 8 items of information sought, information pertaining to 7 awards running into several pages has been provided to the Appellant. Thus, it was prayed to dispose off the appeal and uphold the exemption claimed u/s 8 (1) (a) for disclosure of information regarding Special Contribution Award.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sriram S, CPIO and Chief Administrative Officer (A) participated in the hearing through audio conference. He referred to his written submission dated 17.06.2021 and stated that it has now been decided to provide the name of recipients of Group Achievement Award by small/ medium sized team by indicating name of the Group Leader and the year of award for the period from 2013-17. However, information regarding recipients of Special Achievement Award cannot be provided as per Section 8 (1) (a) as revealing their name is not in the larger public interest as it would result in revealing the identity of key officials involved in indigenous development of nuclear energy capabilities of the country and would thus compromise the national interest.
The Appellant's representative participated in the hearing through audio conference. While acknowledging the receipt of the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant's representative stated that he would not want to contest the matter further if any part of the information sought was exempted u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 which could hamper the security or strategic interest of the state.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission concurs with the stand taken by the Respondent with Page 3 of 6 regard to non disclosure of awardees of the special achievement award. The Commission thus directs Shri Sriram S, CPIO and Chief Administrative Officer (A), BARC to only disclose the name of Group leaders who were recipients of Group Achievement Award by small/ medium sized team for the period from 2013-17 to the Appellant by 31.07.2021, as agreed. No other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly CIC/BARCM/A/2019/125283 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2018 seeking the following information:-
PIO, Chief Admin. Officer (A), BARC vide letter dated 28.12.2018 replied as follows:Page 4 of 6
Being dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2019. FAA, Controller, BARC vide order dated 22.02.2019 disposed off the First Appeal with the following observations:
In compliance with the order of the FAA, the PIO, BARC provided a revised reply vide letter dated 07.03.2019 wherein the data of number of officers promoted from the grade of SO/E to DS for the period from 2013 to 2018 was provided.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 21.06.2021 has been received from the Appellant and the same has been taken on record.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO and Chief Administrative Officer (A) vide letter dated 17.06.2021 wherein it was stated that on the basis of the order of the FAA, PIO, BARC provided information with regard to the total number of employees who got promotions in different grades from 2013 to 2018 but did not give information indicating the number of SC/ ST officers promoted to different higher grades with respect to the total number during 2013 to 2018. It was stated that the details of SC/ST category among those promoted in different officer grades in last 6 years is not available in the form in which it was sought as reservation is applicable only upto lowest rung of Group A. Thus, BARC is not in a position to provide the details sought by the Appellant.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant's representative participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that incorrect and misleading information was provided on point no 2 of the RTI application since information regarding the number of SC/ ST candidates who were promoted in different grades for the period mentioned in Page 5 of 6 the RTI application should be maintained at the headquarter level and can be compiled and provided to him.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sriram S, Chief Administrative Officer (A), BARC participated in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated the earlier reply of the CPIO dated 28.12.2018 and written submission dated 17.06.2021 and stated that the details of SC/ST among those promoted in different officer grades in last 6 years is not available in the compiled form in which it was sought as reservation is applicable only upto lowest rung of Group A. Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that adequate information is provided by the Respondent. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is only required to provide information that is available on the record of the public authority and no obligation vests on the officer to collate and compile the records in the form it is sought by the information seeker. Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6