Central Information Commission
Rajaperumal M vs Csir Hqrs.,New Delhi on 22 July, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली Ð 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CSIRD/A/2019/135005
In the matter of:
Rajaperumal M
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
CSIR-National Chemical Laboratory,
Dr Homi Bhabha Road, Ward No. 8, NCL Colony,
Pashan, Pune, Maharashtra - 411008
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/04/2019 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal online No. : NCLPE/A/2019/60003
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal Filed on : 22/07/2019 Date of Hearing : 22/07/2021 Date of Decision : 22/07/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Ajay Kumar Thakur, Administrative Officer and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether the case study submitted by the appellant in his PhD thesis has been accepted or not. Provide the reasons for acceptance or denial of the case study.1
2. Whether the case study submitted by the appellant contains any violation of CSIR or AcSIR rules. lf yes, provide the complete details of the section of CSIR or AcSIR rules, which has been violated.
3. Whether the DAC member knows the fact that information pertaining to the list of instrument used or operated by Rajaperumal M is not available at CSIR NCL Pune.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the satisfactory information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he had not received any reply yet. The CPIO vide written submissions dated 16.07.2021 submitted that they had provided the available information vide letter dated 16.05.2019. He pointed out that the appellant was awarded CSIR-UGC Jr. Research fellowship vide award letter dated 09.05.2012. The appellant joined CSIR-NCL under the guidance of Scientist Dr. Mrs. Manjushka Shelke. In July 2013, the guide of the appellant received an e-mail from Dr. D. Kalpana, Sr. Scientist of the lab i.e CSIR-CECRI, Karaikudi wherein Dr. D. Kalpana complained that the appellant had sent indecent e-mails to her Director and Editor of scientific journal even after the appellant was given proper explanation by Dr. D. Kalpana about her research work.
She further submitted that the appellant had submitted an explanation in pursuance of the e-mail consequent to which, the appellant apologised for his behaviour vide his e-mail dated 26.07.2013. Subsequently, in November 2013 the appellant's guide recommended his upgradation to Senior Research Fellowship based on the recommendations of the assessment Committee and an office memo to this effect was also issued on 19.12.2013. She further submitted that in Oct 2015, the appellant had requested for change of guide from Dr. Mrs. Shelke to Dr. K.Krishnamoorthy which was accepted by the Respondent organisation and an office memo dated 12.10.2015 was issued to this effect. Thereafter since 2016, the appellant has been filing tens of RTI applications which do not have any relation to public interest, rather these are purely motivated by personal vengeance, which indeed reflect sheer misuse of RTI Act.2
Observations:
The Commission observed that the Annexure-A of the written submissions of the CPIO contains a point-wise explanation to the appeal of the appellant. Further, the appellant could not make out a case of second appeal under the Act.
Decision:
The CPIO is therefore directed to send the copy of the reply dated 16.05.2019 and the submissions dated 16.07.2021 along with the Annexures to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) सरना सूचना आयु") Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ%मा&णत स)या*पत %ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3