Central Information Commission
Ravindra Nath vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ... on 16 June, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ONGCL/A/2018/165427-BJ
Mr. Ravindra Nath
(Email: [email protected]/[email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & CM (HR), I/c HR-ER,
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC),
Tel Bhawan, Dehradun (Uttarakhand)
2. CPIO DY. GM (Legal) - Nodal Officer,
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited,
1st Floor, Tower -A, Deendayal Urja Bhawan,
5, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi 110070
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.06.2020
Date of Decision : 16.06.2020
Date of RTI application 26.04.2018
CPIO's response 21.05.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.08.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 31.10.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the posting history & promotion history of sitting functional Board of Directors; the posting at North-Eastern regions of the functional board of directors (including Chairman) who rendered services during their employment in ONGC; DPC proceedings for the years 2016-18 for all the disciplines, etc. Page 1 of 6 The CPIO, vide letter dated 21.05.2018, provided information on point no. 5 of the RTI application as received from the Corporate Promotion Section and for other four points i.e. 01 to 04, transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, ONGC, Delhi for providing required information. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ravindra Nath through TC;
Respondent: Mr. N. Mahalingam, CPIO, Dehradun, Mr. Ajay Sahoo, DGM (HR), Dehradun and Mr. K. S. Sonkar, DGM (Legal) & Nodal Officer, New Delhi through TC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him, till date. He further submitted that partial information pertaining to Mechanical Discipline was only provided on point no. 05 of the application whereas he had sought DPC proceedings for all disciplines for the years 2016-18. But, the CPIO had deliberately not furnished the DPC proceedings for other disciplines, earlier. It was further submitted that he is working in the Respondent Public Authority as a General Manager (Mechanical). In its reply, the Respondent at Dehradun submitted that initially they had provided the information relating to DPC pertaining to Mechanical discipline only. Subsequently, after filing of First Appeal, they had provided the DPC for other disciplines also as desired by the Appellant on 4th June. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and submitted that the DPC for other disciplines were provided in this year only i.e. on 4th June, 2020 after a prolonged delay by hiding the crucial information/particulars. On being queried by the Commission as to why the information sought was hidden earlier, no cogent response was offered by the Respondent. He further clarified that the Appellant belongs to Mechanical discipline and therefore, the information sought for other discipline was not provided. The Appellant further submitted that he had earlier sought DPC proceedings for the period 2000 to 2015 through another RTI and that complete information including for other disciplines was provided to him except the Master Chart. The Master Chart in his own case was provided but the same was not legible. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the names of the members of the DPCs were redacted as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In support of his contention, the Respondent relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Arvind Kejriwal vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat & Ors. in WP(C) 6614/2008 dated 30th July, 2010.
The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or Page 2 of 6 lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.
It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Appellant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-
disclosure."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:Page 3 of 6
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
In the context of disclosure of entry in the employee's own ACR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of Dev Dutt vs Union of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008, Civil Appeal No. 7631 OF 2002, had held as under
"19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
20. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder."
In judgment of the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in R.K. Jain v. Union of India, W.P. 6756 of 2010 dated 08.12.2011 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its aforementioned decision it was held as under:
"10. Therefore, except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of an officer cannot be disclosed to any person other than the officer himself/herself."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of THDC India Ltd. vs. R.S. Raturi, W.P. (C) No. 903 dated 08.07.2014 wherein it had been held as under:
12. However, this Court is of the view that the respondent is entitled to the contents of his own ACR after redaction of the names of the reviewing, reporting and accepting Page 4 of 6 officers. In fact, another coordinate Bench of this Court in THDC India Ltd. v. T. Chandra Biswas 199 (2013) DLT 284 has held as under:-
9. While the learned counsel for the respondent has contended before me that the respondent ought to have been supplied with the ACRs for the period 2004 to 2007, the respondent has not assailed that part of the order of the CIC. In my view, while the contention of the respondent has merit, which is that she cannot be denied information with regard to her own ACRs and that information cannot fall in the realm of any of the exclusionary provisions cited before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j), there is a procedural impediment, in as much as, there is no petition filed to assail that part of the order passed by the CIC.
9.1. In my view, the right to obtain her own ACRs inheres in the respondent which cannot be denied to the respondent under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The ACRs are meant to inform an employee as to the manner in which he has performed in the given period and the areas which require his attention, so that he may improve his performance qua his work.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission cautions the CPIO for not providing the complete information within the time period stipulated under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. No other intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 16.06.2020 Page 5 of 6 Copy to:
1. The CMD, ONGC Ltd., 5, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Page 6 of 6