Central Information Commission
Govind Narayan vs Department Of Telecommunications on 20 June, 2024
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/DOTEL/A/2023/118319
Shri Govind Narayan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Centre for Development of Telematics ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2024
Date of Decision : 19.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.11.2022
PIO replied on : 16.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 15.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Kindly provide the vigilance inquiry initiated against Mr. Arvind Vishwakarma and Mr. Raj Kumar (the then Manager Administration) for embezzlement of Public funds in favoring, M/s Zerox Technologies i.e. the photocopying contractor with C-DOT.
2. Kindly provide the case history of the initiation of the inquiry against Manager Administration i.e. Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Arvind Vishwakarma.
3. Kindly provide the status report of the inquiry regarding the embezzlement committed by the then Manager Administration and the Photocopy Contractor i.e. M/s Zerox Technologies.
4. Kindly provide the period of finalizing the vigilance inquiry in time bound manner as per service law and Further provide the copy of the vigilance inquiry in the above mentioned case of embezzlement.
5. Kindly provide the copy of initial disciplinary action against the two officials of C- DOT i.e. Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Arvind Vishvakarma.
6. Kindly provide the reasons for not suspending the then Manager Administration Mr. Raj Kumar for hatching conspiracy and misappropriation"
The CPIO vide letter dated 16.03.2023 replied as under:-
"......The information requested with regard to the initiation of inquiry against an employee cannot be provided as the same relates to personal information of the Page 1 of 3 employee and the disclosure of it has not relationship to any public activity. Thus, the information sough under RTIs dated 24.11.2002 and 25.11.2022 cannot be provided as the same are exempted under sub clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.02.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
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: Present after the hearing Respondent: Ms. Akshita Gupta - Authorised Representative, Executive Legal and Shri Shyam Kishore Maurya - Advocate Respondent present for hearing stated that information sought related to vigilance inquiry related information about two of their employees, which is personal in nature. The Respondent further stated that pending vigilance proceedings is another reason for denial of information.
The Appellant appeared after the hearing and stated that he is the complainant and had initiated the vigilance inquiry and hence had the right to know about the action taken on the complaint, whereas the Respondent had unjustly denied any information to him.
Decision:
After hearing averments of both parties, it is noted that the Appellant had nowhere before mentioned that he is the complainant and sought information about action taken on his complaint. Hence denial of information by the Respondent was justified. However, the Respondent erred in not clearly stating the ground for denial of information and citing the appropriate provisions of law. It is noted that the information dealt with vigilance enquiry related information about two persons who are employees of the Respondent. The Respondent further stated that proceedings were pending against the said individuals. Thus the information falls within the exemption under Section 8(1)(e), (j) and (h) of the RTI Act, because information sought relates to an ongoing investigation about third party, is personal in nature and such information is held in fiduciary capacity by the Respondent. Moreover no larger public interest has been demonstrated by the Appellant for obtaining the information.
On the other hand, the Appellant has averred that he is the complainant who had initiated the vigilance proceedings, hence, he is entitled to know the outcome of the complaint. In the light of the above position, it is hereby directed that the Respondent shall send a current status report with respect to the complaint, claimed to have been filed by the Appellant, as permissible under provisions of the RTI Act, upon verifying the complaint number and details claimed to have been filed Page 2 of 3 by the Appellant. The revised reply shall be sent by the Respondent, upon authenticating that the Appellant had indeed filed the complaint, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall also submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter.
The appeal is disposed off on the above terms.
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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)