Central Information Commission
S. Ashokan vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 5 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BHELD/A/2021/151555 +
CIC/BHELD/A/2021/151464
S Ashokan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
RTI Cell, BHEL House, Siri Fort,
New Delhi - 110049. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/08/2022
Date of Decision : 03/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal(s):
RTI application filed on : 07/07/2021 & 07/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 10/09/2021 & 10/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 16/08/2021 & 16/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 18/09/2021 & 18/09/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/11/2021 & 18/11/2021
1
CIC/BHELD/A/2021/151555 +
CIC/BHELD/A/2021/151464
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.07.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "Furnished a copy of interview committee marks and DPC marks obtained by me in the GM Interview attended year wise in a tabular format.
2. Furnished a copy of interview committee marks and DPC marks obtained by me in the ED Interview attended year wise in a tabular format.
3. Copy of all the Amendments made with dates in CDA Rules after the MHI letter dated 26.11.2009 vide office memorandum No. 15(7)/1999-DPE (GM)-GL-98 GOI, MHI & PE (Department of Public Enterprises) on enabling imposition on public sector employees after retirement."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 10.09.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point 1: Synopsis for the year 2004 to 2009 for consideration from AGM to GM promotion in respect of Shri S Ashokan are attached (6 pages). Point 2: Interview marks obtained by the applicant in the ED interviews attended by hire are 20/ 30 and 11/ 30 respectively for the years 2012 and 2013.
Point 3: No information, with regard to the amendments made. in CDA Rules after the MHI-11 letter dated 26.11.2009 vide office memorandum No 15(7)/1999-DPE(GM)-GL-98,GOI,MHI&PE (Department of Public Enterprises) on enabling imposition on Public Sector employees after retirement, is available as per our records."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. FAA's order dated 18.09.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: 2
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Shilpi Sikka, Dy. Manager (Law) & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought by the Appellant including his score in the interview and DPC marks pertains to old records of more than 20 years old documents which are not readily traceable in their office. She further submitted that even otherwise, the relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant.
In rebuttal to CPIO's contentions, the Appellant vehemently denied the factum of information sought for being more than 20 years old and stated that version of CPIO regarding non-availability of records is unacceptable in view of the fact that synopsis of his marks has already been supplied to him and that now only the desired records of DPC in the prescribed table has not been provided to him till date. He further harped on the delay aspect so caused from the CPIO's side in not giving complete information and prayed the bench to take penal action against him.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO tendered her unconditional apologies for delay and attributed the reason for the same to be the challenging circumstances faced due to COVID pandemic when she had also suffered COVID at the time of dealing with instant RTI Application.
To a query from the Commission regarding the record retention policy of BHEL for retention of records for such interviews/selection, the CPIO pleaded lack of knowledge and volunteered to check it from their office.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset after submissions of both the parties hereby condones the delay in providing a reply beyond the stipulated time frame of RTI Act owing to COVID pandemic .
Further, the Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO as the same adequately suffices the information sought by 3 the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope further relief in the matter.
Lastly, it will be in the best interest of the Respondent Public Authority to streamline the maintenance of their records and frame a record retention policy for various wings and upload on their website for it be in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO, BHEL is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4