Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dr Pradeep Kumar vs Csir-Hrdg, New Delhi on 22 April, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                   के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                               बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CHRDG/A/2023/615582

Dr Pradeep Kumar                                          ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, CSIR-HRDG, New Delhi                             ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                      :   18.04.2024
Date of Decision                     :   18.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner       :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :      01.02.2023
PIO replied on                    :      01.03.2023
First Appeal filed on             :      06.03.2023
First Appellate Order on          :      24.03.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :      25.03.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

1. Certified copy of Vigilance Clearance given to Dr Ashok Kumar, Scientist "H" CSIR-CBRI before his retirement on 31st January 2023.

2. Certified copy of noting and action taken on letter written to Dr. (Mrs.) N. Kalaiselvi, Director General, CSIR and Secretary DSIR on 12-01-23 regarding issuing Vigilance Clearance Certificate to Dr Ashok Kumar at the time of retirement.

3. Director CSIR- CBRI has submitted the SIB investigation report to DG CSIR after completion of inquiry for necessary action in case of Termination of MOU on 25.10.21 with SAP Automation, India Pvt Ltd due to serious allegations of intellectual dishonesty against on Dr Ashok Kumar, Scientist "H" CSIR-CBRI. Certified copy of action taken on this report may please be furnished under RTI Act

4. Dr Ashok Kumar has submitted false and fabricated Bio data for the selection of Scientist "H" post and based on this Bio data he managed to grab the post of Director's grade Scientist "H". My complaint dated 20.9.22 to Director CSIR- CBRI and copy to DG CSIR has already been submitted.

Certified copy of action taken on this complaint may please be furnished under RTI Act.

5. The CSIR labs CSIO Chandigarh, CBRI Roorkee and IMT Chandigarh worked together to develop UV-C based disinfection technology/systems and Dr Ashok Kumar was Project Coordinator representing CBRI False and fabricated publicity message by Hon'ble Vice President of India and Hon'ble Minister Dr Jitendra Singh in Rajya Sabha and LokSabha respectively due to misleading information by Dr Ashok Kumar. Certified copy of action taken on this complaint may please be furnished under RTI Act.

6. I made a complaint to CVO CSIR for investigating the matter with vigilance angle on Flouting of Purchase Rules in Construction of Net Zero Building (Gross violation of CSIR purchase Guidelines and GFR and CPWD manual) at Techno Park CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee vide my complaint dated 25.7.22 to Director CSIR- CBRI. As per Information under RTI Act (Page 37- 41 is deliberately missing in information) regarding Construction of Net Zero Building at Techno Park, CSIR- CBRI, Roorkee under the project GAP 0806 who's Project Leader is outstanding Scientist Dr Ashok Kumar. The cost of the project is Rs. 668-00 Lakh sponsored by DST, Building has been constructed from 06-01-2021 to 03- 10-2021 through e-tendering process on Government e-bidders He is alsoresponsible for wastage of Rs 80-00 lakh amount of another building constructed in the name of research near Swaran Jayanti Guest House. Certified copy of action taken on this complaint may please be furnished under RTI Act."

The CPIO, CSIR-HRDG, New Delhi vide letter dated 01.03.2023 replied as under:-

"Point No.1:-The vigilance clearance of Scientist H is dealt at CSIR Hqrs level. On the basis of vigilance status received from CSIR Hqrs the action is being taken under CCS pension rules 2021 accordingly at CBRI. As far as providing the copy of vigilance given to Dr Ashok Kumar is concerned the same is exempted under clause 8 (1) (j) of RTI Point No. 2:-Information pertains to CSIR Hqrs and does not pertain to CSIR-CBRL Point no. 3:-SIB, CSIR-CBRI has submitted its report, the same has been forwarded to CSIR Hqrs. Certified copy of action taken on report is not dealt by CBRI, hence cannot be provided.

Point No. 4:-Reply on email dated 20.09.22 given by Director vide email to the applicant is enclosed herewith.

Point No.5:-The information sought is vague Point No. 6:-The complaint addressed to multiple authorities are dealt as per provision 3.4.3 of the vigilance manual. The applicant is citing a reference to another RTI made by him whereby some documents were not provided to him. The RTI mechanism provides the appeal for addressing such kinds of issues. The applicant is kindly informed to resort to the appeal procedure within 30 days of receipt of information as provided under the Act. The applicant is seeking the information n by citing another information obtained by him in some other RTI, therefore the above request is not covered under RTI as per CSIR Letter No 15- 6(82)/98-O&M- II(Vig)dated 03.05.2017."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.03.2023 reiterated the reply given by the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Smt. Vandana Digvijay Singh - US was present during hearing. Dr. D P Kamango - CPIO and Mrs. Priya were also present through video conference during hearing.

Respondent present during hearing reiterated that information available on record with the public authority had been duly furnished to the Appellant.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the case reveals that information sought by the Appellant pertains to a third party and hence exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to note that this issue had been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 03.10.2012 in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., and it was held as under:

"...copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, 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 organisation 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 disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual..."

In the light of the aforementioned legal position, the response sent by the PIO is appropriate. Also considering that the Appellant has neither attended the hearing nor submitted any argument stating that any larger public interest will be served by disclosure of the aforementioned information, the Commission is of considered opinion that no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)