Dr Ritesh Kumar vs Cimfr, Dhanbad on 25 January, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dr Ritesh Kumar vs Cimfr, Dhanbad on 25 January, 2022

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                           क य सुचना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                           File no.: CIC/CMRID/A/2020/690150
In the matter of:
Ritesh Kumar
                                                                ... Appellant
                                      VS
CPIO
CSIR - Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR),
Barwa Road,
Dhanbad - 826001.
                                                                ... Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   11/07/2020
CPIO replied on                   :   28/07/2020
First appeal filed on             :   24/08/2020

First Appellate Authority order : 21/09/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 22/10/2020 Date of Hearing : 24/01/2022 Date of Decision : 24/01/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Pankaj Kr Mishra, Senior Principal Scientist & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to dismissal of Anit Kumar, Ex-Security Officer of CSIR-CIMFR:

1. Provide a copy of the dismissal order of Mr. Anit Kumar, Ex-Security Officer, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad.

2. Provide a copy of the note sheet routed through different stages in respect of the said case of Mr. Anit Kumar.

3. Provide a copy of the duly filled form submitted at the time of recruitment to the post of Security Officer in response to Advertisement issued in CSIR-

CIMFR, Dhanbad.

4. And other related information. Grounds for Second appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information under sub-sections ( e, g and

h) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that the information was incorrectly denied to him u/s 8(1)(e), (g) & (h) of the RTI Act.

The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 28.07.2020. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 19.01.2022.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that on all the points of the RTI application except for point no. 8, the information sought by the appellant is purely related to personal information of third parties, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the CPIO had correctly explained that since the appellant has been suspended from services and an investigation is going on and the persons regarding whom information was sought may be witness in his case and while holding that the information was sought for personal interest rather than any public interest, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(e), (g) (h) of the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be given on these points irrespective of the fact whether the investigation in the appellant's case is still pending or completed.

With regard to point no. 8, the appellant had sought a copy of the advertisement for the appointment of Anit Kumar. Since an advertisement is a general notice inviting eligible candidates for appointment to a post, this information can be given to the appellant.

Decision:

In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the sought for information on point no. 8 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त) 2 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission