Central Information Commission
Amit Nain vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 23 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2023/639379
Shri Amit Nain ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025
Date of Decision : 21.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2023
PIO replied on : 26.06.2023
First Appeal filed on : 28.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : 26.07.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. Applicant filed a grievance related to Vigilance Branch Hqrs through PMOPG portal on 18/04/2023. The same was registered with grievances registration number no. MOLBR/E/2023/0038293 dated 18/04/2023. Subsequently on 24/05/2023 my grievance was closed by the concerned officer, Shri Pravin Kumar Tiwari (RPFC-I).
Please provide the certified copies of the complete file (both correspondence and noting side) in which grievances registration number MOLBR/E/2023/0038293 dated 18/04/2023 was dealt.
2. Applicant filed a grievance related to Vigilance Branch Hqrs through PMOPG portal on 27/03/2023. The same was registered with grievances registration number no. PMOPG/E/2023/0066210 dated 27/03/2023. Subsequently on 31/03/2023 my grievance was closed by the concerned officer, Mrs Nisha O.V (RPFC-I). Please provide the certified copies of the complete file (both correspondence and noting side) in which grievances registration number PMOPG/E/2023/0066210 dated 27/03/2023 was dealt. I. Then for that grievance, an appeal was also filed with appeal registration number no. MOLBR/E/A/23/0008031 dated 25/04/2023. Subsequently on 11/05/2023 my grievance was also closed by the concerned officer, Shri Pravin Kumar Tiwari (RPFC-I). Please provide the certified copies of the complete file (both Page 1 correspondence and noting side) in which appeal registration number MOLBR/E/A/23/0008031 dated 25/04/2023 was dealt.
3. Applicant filed a grievance related to Vigilance Branch Hqrs through PMOPG portal on 15/03/2023. The same was registered with grievances registration number no. PMOPG/E/2023/0058523 dated 15/03/2023. Subsequently on 27/03/2023 my grievance was closed by the concerned officer, Mrs Nisha O.V (RPFC-I). Please provide the certified copies of the complete file (both correspondence and noting side) in which grievances registration number PMOPG/E/2023/0058523 dated 15/03/2023 was dealt. I. Then for that grievance, an appeal was also filed with appeal registration number no. MOLBR/E/A/23/0006242 dated 27/03/2023. Subsequently on 31/03/2023 my grievance was also closed by the concerned officer, Mrs Nisha O.V (RPFC-I). Please provide the certified copies of the complete file (both correspondence and noting side) in which appeal registration number MOLBR/E/A/23/0006242 dated 27/03/2023 was dealt.
4. Applicant filed a grievance related to Vigilance Branch Hqrs through PMOPG portal on 06/03/2023. The same was registered with grievances registration number no. PMOPG/E/2023/0052917 dated 06.03.2023. Subsequently on 13/03/2023 my grievance was closed by the concerned officer, Mrs Nisha O.V (RPFC-I). Please provide the certified copies of the complete file (both correspondence and noting side) in which grievances registration number PMOPG/E/2023/0052917 dated 06.03.2023 was dealt. II. Then for that grievance, an appeal was also filed with appeal registration number no. MOLBR/E/A/23/0005276 dated 14/03/2023. Subsequently on 24/03/2023 my grievance was also closed by the concerned officer, Mrs Nisha O.V (RPFC-I). Please provide the certified copies of the complete file (both correspondence and noting side) in which appeal registration number MOLBR/E/A/23/0005276 dated 14/03/2023 was dealt."
The CPIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.06.2023 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1 & 3:-Does not pertain to Vigilance Division.
Point No. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7:-CIC in its Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 and in decision No. CIC/AT/A2009/0617 dated 16.09.2009, passed the judgement that the file noting in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amount to information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 26.07.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 17.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
It is pertinent to mention the brief of inquiries which are pending against Sh. Amit Nain, RPFC-II to comprehend the whole matter. Shri Amit Nain, RPFC-II was trapped and arrested for demanding and accepting of illegal gratification and the prosecution sanction was granted vide order dated 22.05.2023 as per rule and departmental proceedings against him is also underway.
The applicant i.e. Sh. Amit Nain, RPFC II has filed seven grievances/representations on the grievance portal through which he has requested to grant an opportunity to be heard in person before reaching on any decision on prosecution sanction against him which was sought at that time. Replies were uploaded by the vigilance division on the grievance portal after checking the facts from the concerned file. The crux of all replies is as follows; " The matter involved is not a public grievance but relates to the sanction of prosecution against the complainant officer under Rule 19 (1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 which is dealt with the relevant rule as per the order of the competent authority." Further, the applicant sought the certified copies of the complete file (both correspondence and noting side) in which his grievance was dealt. Against this, reply was uploaded at portal which is stated above. Regarding file noting and correspondence, it is submitted that same were not dealt in any separate file, inputs were provided after checking the facts from the concerned case file and same were uploaded on the portal.
The noting and correspondence in which his case was dealt cannot be shared as it is exempted under section 8 (1) (g). File noting(s) in vigilance files are held by the public authority in the capacity. of third party information and are thus confidential in nature. Further, that disclosure of the same would endanger the life and physical safety of the officer(s) who tender their remarks, as the intent of RTI Applicants in seeking file noting(s) in vigilance cases is to find out which officer has acted favorably and who has acted otherwise. The rationale behind invoking Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act is that the disclosure of identifying particulars of the officers who have tendered the noting(s) would endanger their life and physical safety.
In view of above, it is submitted that the sought information (the certified copies of the complete file both correspondence and noting side in which his grievance was dealt) does not exist. Hence, the same cannot be provided.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing Page 3 Respondent: Mr. Satya Prakash, RPFC-II- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date.
The Respondent stated that the Appellant has sought the certified copies of the complete file (both correspondence and noting side) in which his grievance was dealt. He stated that the grievances of the Appellant were not dealt in any separate file, inputs were provided after checking the facts from the concerned case file and same were uploaded on the portal 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 examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the custodian of information. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied 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 off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) 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)