Central Information Commission
Mssuman Verma vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 6 October, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001903
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 28th September 2015
Date of decision : 6th October 2015
Name of the Appellant : Ms. Suman Verma,
652/GH13, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi110087
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Indian Oil Bhavan, 1, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi 110016 The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri T. K. Pradhan, DGM and CPIO.
2. Shri A. K. Mishra, SM.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter, pertaining to an RTI application dated 16.4.2014 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on two points regarding the number and details of the employees upgraded from Grade VI to VII on 30.12.2011 and the name, address and designation of the Complainant who allegedly complained against her, came up on 28.9.2015. The CIC/SH/A/2014/001903 Appellant stated that the information in response to point No. 2 regarding the details of the complainant has not been provided to her. She further submitted that in keeping with an order of the Respondents, she joined the next higher grade, i.e. grade VII, on 30.12.2011. Subsequently, a complaint was made that she was on leave on the above date and could not have joined the higher grade on that day. Based on the above, her joining of grade VII was delayed by a few days till the end of her leave. The Appellant stated that an employee of the public authority has been harassing her and she has filed an FIR against him on account of various charges, including sexual harassment. She submitted that everyone in the office knows that the complaint against her was made by the above person and she needs the information, sought at point No. 2 of her RTI application, in the context of a court case between her and the above person. The Appellant questioned the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in view of the whistle blower policy adopted by the Respondent public authority and Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.
2. The Respondents stated that as a result of an MOU signed between the management and the union, they wrote to the eligible employees for their upgradation from grade VI to grade VII w.e.f. 30.12.2011. The Appellant filed her joining report in the higher grade as on 30.12.2011. It escaped their attention that she was on leave on that date. Subsequently, on receiving a complaint, they issued a written notice to her on CIC/SH/A/2014/001903 7.2.2014 to clarify her position, pointing out that as per her leave record, she was on leave from 26.12.2011 to 5.1.2012. No action was taken against her, except for postponing her promotion to grade VII to 6.1.2012. The Respondents reiterated the decision of the CPIO to deny the information in terms of their whistle blower policy and Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.
3. The Appellant stated that Section 3 (d) of The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 states that "disclosure" means a complaint relating to an attempt to commit or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wilful misuse of power or discretion by virtue of which demonstrable loss is caused to the government or demonstrable wrongful gain accrues to a public servant or any third party and attempt to commit or commission of criminal offence by a public servant. She submitted that the complaint made against her did not fall in the above categories.
4. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties. The Appellant alleges harassment at the hands of an employee of the public authority and believes that he filed the complaint against her. The Commission is not competent to sit in judgment on her allegation of harassment at the hands of the said employee. However, it is noted that the complaint regarding her having joined grade VII on a day, when she was on leave, was not incorrect. Further, she was not awarded any punishment as a result of CIC/SH/A/2014/001903 the above complaint, except for postponement of her promotion by a few days. We also note that the information was not denied by the Respondents under the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2011, but in view of their whistle blower policy and Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. It is seen from Section 5 of the above policy that protection of the identity of a complainant is subject to the limitations of the law, besides requirements of the investigation. Therefore, the issue for consideration is denial of the information under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. The issue of disclosure of the identity of complainant was examined in the Commission's order No. CIC/SS/C/2012/900173 dated 1.10.2013 and the Commission made the following observations: "6. Having heard the submissions and perused the records, the Commission concurs with the Respondents' view that information in question [i.e. name and designation of the person who lodged the complaint against the Appellant (point No. 1); names of persons involved in the preliminary enquiry (point No. 8) and copy of original complaint (point No. 9)] attracts exemption u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of said information would endanger the life or physical safety of the person/complainant."
5. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the decision of the CPIO to deny the information, in response to point No. 2 of the RTI application, under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
CIC/SH/A/2014/001903
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/001903