Central Information Commission
K A Jacob vs The Marine Products Export Development ... on 9 October, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal Nos. CIC/MPEDA/A/2017/194876/MP, CIC/MPEDA/A/2017/192015/MP,
CIC/MPEDA/A/2017/105870/MP
Appellant : Shri Jacob K.A., Alappuzha.
Public Authority : Marine Products Export Development Authority,
Kochi.
Date of Hearing : 06th October, 2017.
Date of Decision : 09th October, 2017
Present : Present through VC.
Appellant : Shri G. Rajendran, Dy. Director (P)/CPIO and
Shri Suresh Kumar, Asstt. Director through VC.
Respondent :
ORDER
Case No. CIC/MPEDA/A/2017/194876/MP
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 16.02.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA), Kochi seeking copy of approved/revised tour programme in respect of Shri P. Anil Kumar, Dy. Director, RO Mumbai in the capacity as Inquiry Officer for the tour period July 2015 till date; names of all Deputy Directors working in the MPEDA, HO/RO, Kochi/RC Kochi/SRO Kollam/SRC Kannur/SRO Mangalore (entire Kerala Region) and TN, Karnataka, AP as on 25.07.2015; norms/guidelines/orders issued by the GOI for the appointment of officers as Inquiry Officer; number of foreign tours undertaken by Shri P. Anil Kumar from 1.7.2015 till date, purpose of tour, place visited; specific norm recommended by MPEDA to appoint Shri P. Anil kumar as Inquiry Officer; copy of file note from dealing hand to appoint Shri P. Anil Kumar as IO; details of charge memo 1 issued to all MPEDA employees for the period 1.1.2005 to 31.1.2016 etc. through eleven points.
1.2. The CPIO sent a point-wise reply on all points while denying information on points 7, 8 and 9 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 through his letters dated 11.04.2016 and 05.08.2016. Not satisfied from the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 02.06.2016. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal till the date of filing the second appeal before the Commission.
1.3. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 19.09.2016 on the grounds of denial of information on points 7, 8 and 9.
1.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the response provided by the CPIO on points 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the RTI application and added that on most of the points the information was denied under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He stated that the CPIO had provided incorrect list of Deputy Directors working in MPEDA. He sought norms/guidelines issued by GOI for appointment of officers as Inquiry Officer which was not provided. The information sought on points 8 and 9 i.e. copy of sanction order issued to Shri P. Anil Kumar, Deputy Director for his house construction and details of charge memo issued to all IMPEDA employees had been denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondents stated that on point 3 the CPIO had provided copy of list of Dy. Directors working in MPEDA as per available records; on point 4 and 6 the CPIO had provided rules and appointment order of Shri P. Anil Kumar, Deputy Director as Enquiry Officer to inquire into charges framed against the appellant. The information as sought by the appellant on points 8 and 9 pertained to third party information, hence denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
1.5 Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observes that the CPIO had provided a point-wise reply to the appellant. The information sought by the appellant on points 8 i.e. copy of sanction order issued to Shri P. Anil Kumar, Deputy Director for construction of house could not be provided under 2 the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and details of charge memo issued to all MPEDA employees could not be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs. CIC & Ors [SLP (Civil) No. 27734] vide its judgment dated 03.10.2102 that "copies of all memos issued, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules, which fall under the expression personal information." The Commission, however, directs the CPIO to provide to the appellant (i) copy of relevant rules regarding appointment of Inquiry Officer in disciplinary matters as available; (ii) copy of file note for appointing Shri P. Anil Kumar as Inquiry Officer, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission also observes delay on the part of the CPIO in responding to the appellant and directs the CPIO to submit is explanation to the Commission within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
Case No. CIC/MPEDA/A/2017/192015/MP
2. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 18.08.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA), Kochi seeking legal opinion furnished by MPEDA to the Department of Commerce during the past two years about MPEDA Act Rules and Regulations 14 of 2001 interpreting delegation of power/power vested with Chairman, MPEDA to initiate disciplinary action against MPEDA employees in connection with departmental inquiry; copy of essentiality certificate 'A' signed and issued by Director of SD Pharmacy Ernakulam including Dr. S. Maya to all employees of MPEDA; copy of relevant pages of medical claim register reimbursing medical claim to employees of MPEDA based on essentiality certificate; copy of memo/charge memo if any issued to Dr. Unnithan, P.L. Radhakrishna, KK Paulose, CK Sojan and reply submitted by the employees; copy of minutes of authority meeting and sanction taken from administrative Ministry by MPEDA 3 to appoint S. Sasidharan Pillai, J. Ramesh, Thampi Samraj etc; copy of sanction taken by MPEDA from Ministry of Commerce as provisioned in the MPEDA Act, Rules and Regulations to appoint S. Sasidharan Pillai for different contract work; etc. through 28 points.
2.2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 07.10.2016. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal till the date of filing the instant appeal before the Commission.
2.3. The appellant thereafter filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.12.2016 on the grounds of deemed refusal of his RTI application.
2.4 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had received the information sought but the CPIO had replied to the RTI application after a considerable delay and requested the Commission to initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought information on a large number of points the CPIO vide letter dated 02.01.2017 had provided point-wise reply to the appellant, after collecting the same from different holders of information and regretted for the delay.
2.5 Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observes that the CPIO had replied to the appellant with delay. While upholding the decision of the respondent authority, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit his explanation for the delay caused in responding to the appellant, to Commission within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
Case No. CIC/MPEDA/A/2017/105870/MP
3. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 14.10.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA), Kochi seeking proof in support of the adverse remarks made by Shri Sreekumar, Secretary, MPEDA in the APAR of K.A. Jacob, Sr. Accountant for the year 4 2013-14; copy of medical claim register maintained in the Accounts Section pages No. 77 and 78 for the year 2009-10 admitting Rs. 4882 to Chairman MPEDA; Copy of legal opinion obtained by Department of Commerce vide letter No. 7/4/2014/EP(MP dated 20.1.2016 from Department of Legal Affairs and communicated to MPEDA; the period for which MPEDA entrusted to audit India International Seafood Show and Aqua Aquaria Show to CA/outside party and which period such show was audited by MPEDA Accounts Section without entrusting the work to outside auditors; the name designation of officers Sri Simon John, Secretary incharge acted as Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer/Accepting Authority and custodian of APAR of officers and Staff of MPEDA for the period 12.12.2005 till 17.3.2008 etc. through 31 points.
3.2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 14.11.2016. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal till the date of filing the instant appeal before the Commission.
3.3. The appellant thereafter filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 11.01.2017 on the grounds of deemed refusal of his RTI application.
3.4 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the CPIO had not replied to his RTI application within the stipulated period of one month. The respondents stated that the CPIO vide letter dated 02.05.2017 had sent a point-wise reply to the appellant. They added that the appellant sought information on 31 points and it took some time to collect information and respond to the appellant.
3.5 Having considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record, the Commission observes that the CPIO had responded to the appellant appropriately. The appellant too did not indicate any dissatisfaction with the information provided. There has been some delay in responding to the RTI application which was dated 14.10.2016 and the CPIO had replied only on 02.05.2017 causing an inordinate delay of about six months. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to explain the reasons 5 for the delay caused in responding to the RTI application and submit his explanation to the Commission within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
4. The Commission observes that the appellant had filed three appeals and sought voluminous information without establishing any larger public interest in this regard. The RTI Act, 2005 is not mandated for redressal of grievances. The objective of seeking information appears that by filing such RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals, the appellant is only creating difficulties in the smooth working of the public authority. The appellant is advised to use the rights available to him under the RTI Act with full responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority with frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority and use the cherished right given in the RTI Act, 2005 in a diligent manner so as to enable the public authority to use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently. In view of above, the appellant is advised to refrain from filing frivolous and vexatious RTI applications.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar. Address of the parties:
Shri Jacob K.A., The Central Public Information Officer,
Kattikat House, Thumboli Post, Marine Products Export Development
Alappuzha-688008 (Kerala) Authority, MPEDA House,
Panampilly Avenue,
Kochi-682036 (Kerala)
The First Appellate Authority,
Marine Products Export Development
Authority, MPEDA House,
Panampilly Avenue,
Kochi-682036 (Kerala)
6