Central Information Commission
G V Atchuta Ramayya vs Centre For Dna Fingerprinting And ... on 13 February, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Files no.: - CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/640251 +
640386 + 640239 + 641820
In the matter of
G V Atchuta Ramayya
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)
(An autonomous institute of the Department of Biotechnology,
Ministry of Science & Technology)
Inner Ring Road, Uppal, Hyderabad - 500 039
...Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/02/2023 Date of Decision : 13/02/2023 The following were present: Complainant: Present over VC
Respondent: Dr K Anupama, Staff Scientist/Link CPIO-Present over VC
1. In File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/640251:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal First Appellate Complaint filed on filed on Authority order dated 09/04/2022 06/05/2022 Not on Record Not on Record 23/07/2022 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information/documents:
1. Provide month wise details of EPF contributions (both Employee and Employer) paid to Dr. Debashish Mitra by CDFD for the period of his tenure as Director, CDFD and remitted to National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune.
Provide the statement showing the amount on which EPF recovered, Employer's share, Employee's share and total amount.
2. Provide a list of Outsourced Employees (Office Support Staff) whose monthly salary/wages have been above Rs.15,000/- as on the date of their 1 employment in CDFD through Outsourcing Agency and CDFD is contributing and making payment of EPF Employer's Share as Principal Employer. Provide employee-wise details of employer share towards EPF paid by CDFD in respect of outsourced employees (Office Support Staff) from September 2016 to March 2022.
3. Provide copies of the Audit objections (CAG & MST) related to the over- payments made to the permanent staff of CDFD on account of ad hoc promotions, technical promotions, scientific promotions, etc. Also confirm whether recovery has been made from the employees concerned or otherwise. If not recovered, then provide reasons for the same.
4. Provide the copy of the Audit Objection (CAG/MST), if any, which has been pending against Mr. Raghavendrachar Jois, Ex - S.S., CDFD as on the date of his retirement. If the Audit Objection was related to over-payment and has been pending as on the date of his retirement, confirm whether any recovery had been made from his terminal benefits or otherwise. Also, confirm the status of the Audit objection as on date and provide a copy of the reply given to the Audit office.
2. In File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/640386:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal First Appellate Complaint filed on filed on Authority order dated 02/05/2022 23/05/2022 Not on Record Not on Record 24/07/2022 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information/documents:
- Provide copies of the Minutes of CDFD Finance Committee and Governing Council Body for the period from 01/04/2016 to 02/05/2022.
3. In File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/640239:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal First Appellate Complaint filed on filed on Authority order dated 07/05/2022 23/05/2022 Not on Record Not on Record 23/07/2022 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information with reference to the reply dated 06/05/2022 received from the Administrative Officer, CDFD regarding his request for compassionate appointment in CDFD:
- Provide details of the expert committee constituted to examine his request for compassionate appointment. Provide a list of members (internal and external) of the said Committee. Also, provide a copy of the recommendations made by the said Expert Committee.2
4. In File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/641820:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal First Appellate Complaint filed on filed on Authority order dated 22/06/2022 22/07/2022 Not on Record Not on Record 31/07/2022 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide a copy of the signed Balance Sheet, Income and Expenditure Account and Receipts and Payments Account for the FY 2018-19 along with Auditors report.
2. Whether the signed hard copy of the Balance Sheet is available with CDFD for the FY 2018-19 which was included in the Annual Report. If so, then appellant has sought verification of the hard copy with the soft copy available on CDFD website. If not, provide the reasons for misplacing or loss of the hard copy of the Balance Sheet. If the hard copy of the Balance Sheet is not available, whether the same had been intimated to DBT or otherwise. Also provide the action, if any taken, against the officials concerned for misplacing or loss of the hard copy of the Balance Sheet for the Financial Year 2018-19 which was available on CDFD website.
3. Whether any fee was paid to Purushotham and Company for the Financial Year 2018-19. If so, provide the payment details.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Complaints:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant disputed the day to day administrative affairs of his office by way of these instant complaints. He contended that the conduct of the CPIO and other officials of the respondent authority was not in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. He submitted that the CPIO was providing vague, incomplete and unsatisfactory replies to his RTI applications. He sought the intervention of the Commission to resolve the dispute of his compassionate appointment in the respondent authority after the demise of her wife.
In File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/ 640251, he stated that the reply of the CPIO was delayed and within the stipulated 30-day time period. He averred that incomplete information was given in File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/641820 as the CPIO had only supplied the copy of balance sheets. The schedule appended to the balance sheet was not given to him despite multiple requests.3
The Link CPIO by rebutting the contentions of the complainant stated that appropriate replies as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 were given in all cases to the complainant. She stated that the complainant was informed that the schedule appended to the balance sheet in File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/641820 was available on the website of the respondent authority.
Observations:
The Commission at the outset clubbed the instant complaints for final disposal after informing both the parties during the hearing.
The Commission in File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/640251 observed that the CPIO had replied to the complainant within the timeline stipulated under the RTI Act, 2005 and given him an opportunity of inspection as the documents requested for were voluminous in nature. As per the submissions advanced by the complainant during the hearing, the copy of the desired documents were given to him.
In File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/640386, the Commission opined that the reply was suitable as the query of the complainant was not categorical, the CPIO asked him to indicate the specific subject matter for which information was requested. As per the submissions advanced by the parties, the complainant specified the same at a later stage and after paying the photocopying charges, the CPIO had provided the sought for documents within a week's time. The Commission does not find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO. In the other two complaints, bearing File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/640239 and File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/641820, the Commission noted that the replies given by the CPIO were proper, point-wise and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In the opinion of the Commission, disclosable information was given by the CPIO. The Link CPIO guided the complainant during the hearing for accessing the web-link of the respondent authority for perusing the schedule appended to the balance sheets.
The Commission observed that the instant cases were filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section-18. Since records of the cases do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.4
The scope of the powers of the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur, 2012(286) E.L.T. 485. The relevant observations are reproduced as under:
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act."
Emphasis supplied Therefore, in the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncement, the Commission in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot pass any direction/order for providing information to the complainant. Therefore, no further action lies.
Decision:
For all the reasons recorded above, no adverse action under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted against the CPIO in the instant cases.
The complaints being unsustainable are disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) 5 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 6