Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

B D Devadiga vs Hindustan Steelworks Construction ... on 4 September, 2019

                                के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067



निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/HSCLT/C/2017/105495


 B. D. Devadiga                                                      ... निकायतकताग
                                                                      /Complainant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


 CPIO, Hindustan Steelworks                                ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
 Construction Ltd. (HSCL),
 Kolkata.



                                    ORDER

1. A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd (HSCL), Kolkata in compliance of the Commission's Order No. CIC/HSCLT/C/2017/105495 dated 15.02.2019, wherein the Commission has observed that no reply in response to the RTI application was given to the appellant. The CPIO was directed to explain as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him for not providing any reply to the appellant.

Hearing on 29.08.2019:

2. The respondent Shri P. Singh, Rajbhasha Adhikari and CPIO, HSCL Kolkata attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

3. The respondent submitted written submissions dated 01.05.2019 which has been taken on records.

4. The respondent submitted that the appellant's RTI application was addressed to one Shri M.K. Ray, Advisor (Corporate) to CMD, HSCL, Kolkata. Hence, the respondent was not aware of the said RTI application and no response to the RTI application could be sent to the appellant. The respondent further stated that Shri M. K. Ray had retired from the HSCL on 28.02.2009. After retirement he was re- engaged as Chief Operational Manager from 02.03.2009 and he was designated as Advisor (Corporate) to CMD with effect from 24.02.2016. Further, he left the organization on 31.05.2018.

Decision:

5. The Commission, after hearing the submission of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the appellant's RTI application had been filed before Shri M. K. Ray, the then Advisor (Corporate) to CMD, HSCL, Kolkata. The Commission also notes that Shri M. K. Ray, the then Advisor (Corporate) to CMD, HSCL, Kolkata had retired from service in 2009. Further, when the RTI application was filed, Shri M. K. Ray was engaged by HSCL on contractual basis.

6. The Commission observes that Shri M. K. Ray, on receipt of the RTI application, should have forwarded the same to the CPIO, HSCL under intimation to the appellant. The Commission also notes that as per the complainant (Shri B. D. Page 2 of 5 Devadiga) no reply in response to his RTI application was received. Hence, it can be surmised that Shri M. K. Ray had, perhaps, not transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, HSCL. In view of this, in normal course, the Commission would have sought Shri M. K. Ray's explanation and initiated proceedings for imposing a penalty on him. The Commission, however, observes that in a matter relating to imposition of penalty on a retired officer, a coordinate bench of the Commission in its decision dated 13.05.2010 (file no. CIC/PB/2008/00999 and CIC/SM/A/2009/ 000286 Yatish Kumar vs CPIO, P&B) has held as under:

"4. The delay in this case was rather very long and merited imposition of penalty on the responsible CPIO. Although some concession could be given for collecting the information from various offices, surely it could not have taken so long. However, since the CPIO concerned has retired from the service of the bank, we find it not possible to impose any penalty on him at this point of time."

7. On a similar issue, another coordinate bench of the Commission in its decision dated 18.12.2013 (file no. CIC/SS/C/2013/000053 Chander Prakash vs. Airport Authority of India) has held as under:

"4. He has thus requested the commission to take a lenient view in the matter and drop the penalty proceedings against Shri. K.C. Malhotra the then CPIO who has retired from the service of the public authority long back.

"5. In view of the submission above and considering the fact that Shri. K.C. Malhotra (notice) has since retired from the services of the public authority, no further action is warranted in the present matter, which is hereby closed".

8. In view of the above, the Commission decides not to move further with penal proceedings against Shri M. K. Ray, the then Advisor (Corporate) to CMD, HSCL, Kolkata.

9. The Commission also notes that Shri P. Singh, Rajbhasha Adhikari and CPIO, HSCL Kolkata has averred that since the RTI application was filed before Shri M.K. Ray, he was not aware of the same. Hence, no reply could be furnished to the appellant. The Commission finds the aforesaid explanation satisfactory. In view of this, the Show Cause Notice issued Shri P. Singh, Rajbhasha Adhikari and CPIO, HSCL Kolkata is hereby dropped.

10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 03.09.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. (HSCL) H.O.: 5/1, Commissariat Road (Hastings), Kolkata- 700022.

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. (HSCL) H.O.: 5/1, Commissariat Road (Hastings), Kolkata- 700022.

3. Shri B. D. Devadiga Page 5 of 5