Central Information Commission
Ravindra Kumar Sood vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 23 May, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NTPCO/A/2018/104803
Ravindra Kumar Sood ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, NTPC Limited, Corporate ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Centre, NTPC Bhawan, New
Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26.04.2017 FA : 17.08.2017 SA : 18.01.2018
CPIO : 17.08.2017 FAO : 30.08.2017 Hearing : 20.05.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), NTPC Limited, New Delhi, seeking information on eight points pertaining to promotions on the basis of review DPC Meetings, including, inter-alia, (i) a copy of the Promotion rules of NTPC of review DPC on the basis of which Shri S.P. Sharma, employee Page 1 of 7 of Badarpur Thermal Power Station (BTPS), Shri A.K. Sharma (former CMD) and other employees have been given promotions from back date after exoneration along with the documents related to their promotion, review DPCs and approval of the competent authority, and (ii) a copy of old Seniority List and new Seniority List in the channel of promotion prepared after the order (Ref. No. NTPC/BTPS/HR/2017 dated 28.02.2017).
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has denied the information sought for by providing misleading and incorrect information. Moreover, the FAA has mechanically upheld the CPIO's reply. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information sought for by him and to award him compensation for the detriment suffered by him due to non-supply of the desired information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Ravindra Kumar Sood and the respondent Shri S. Nandan, Asstt. General Manager and CPIO, NTPC Ltd., Corporate Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO has not provided a copy of the promotion rules for review DPC on the basis of which Shri S.P. Sharma, Shri A.K. Sharma and other employees have been given promotions from back date after exoneration as well as the copy of his re-evaluated ACR for S-3 post for years in which review DPC was held i.e., 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, as sought vide point nos. 5(1) and 5(3) of the RTI application. He contended that the respondent authority has discriminated against him. Moreover, the promotion Page 2 of 7 rules of DPC as stated by the CPIO are not available at NTPC Corporate intranet. Further, the respondent has wrongly stated that the Seniority List as sought vide point no. 2 of the RTI application is not maintained which is contrary to Rule 2.4 of Promotion Policy of Supervisors of NTPC as per which "The Seniority Lists of the employees in various grades/channels will be prepared and updated from time to time by the HR Dept. in accordance with the Rules framed for this purpose". He further stated that there should be a separate approved policy as on 1993 for criteria and distribution of marks to Diploma equivalent exam (DEE) qualified (ITI holders) in the written test as well as the interview on the basis of which marks were awarded to non-diploma holders during the DPCs. The appellant alleged that even though he is a Diploma holder yet, he was awarded lesser marks than the ITI holder employees. Hence, the requested information sought vide point nos. 5(4), 5(5) and 5(6) of the RTI application should be provided to him. With respect to point no. 5(7) of the RTI application, the appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the list of his immediate juniors for the year in which the review DPC meeting was ordered.
5. The respondent submitted that point-wise information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 17.08.2017. The respondent affirmed that there are no separate Promotion Rules of 'review DPC' as sought by the appellant and that the promotion rules are available on the NTPC intranet, weblink to which has also been provided to the appellant in reply to point no. 5(1) of his RTI application. Further, no Seniority List is maintained by the respondent authority as promotions are decided based on the eligibility list/ Seniority-cum-Merit basis. He also stated that in compliance with the Court order Page 3 of 7 Civil Appeal Nos. 569-571 of 2017, no revaluation of the ACRs was done and only promotion dates were revised. With respect to point nos. 5(4), 5(5) and 5(6) of the RTI application, the respondent clarified that once, both, the Diploma holder employee as well as non-Diploma holder employee qualify the written exam, there is no separate policy/criteria for award of marks for the interview and the marks are awarded by the DPC as per the promotion policy of NTPC. The respondent reiterated that the information sought vide point nos. 5(4), 5(5) and 5(6) of the RTI application, pertain to the statement of company policy regarding promotion of employee in supervisory categories which is available on NTPC Corporate Intranet i.e. http://cchrportal,ntpc.co.in/HRManual/index.html. The respondent further submitted that the appellant has sought the list of employees junior to him for the year 1993. He submitted that since the office where the documents are kept has been shifted multiple times in the past, hence, the relevant records are not traceable.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the information sought, vide point nos. 5(1), 5(4), 5(5) of the RTI application, pertains to NTPC's Promotion Policy. The respondent stated that the promotion policy is available on the NTPC Corporate Intranet. However, the appellant has not been able to access the same. The Commission further observes that as per the respondent, no Seniority List, as sought vide point no. 5(2) of the RTI application, is maintained by NTPC. The respondent, however, could not explain as to why the Seniority list is not Page 4 of 7 maintained. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no Seniority List was maintained earlier and no Seniority List has been prepared after the Promotion Order dated 28.02.2017 by the respondent. Hence, no information can be provided to the appellant in this regard. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. Further, a copy of the ACRs of the appellant for the years in which review DPC was held i.e., 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 [point no. 5(3) of the RTI application] has not been provided to the appellant. As regards point no. 5(6) of the RTI application, the Commission notes that the appellant had sought copies of documents wherein the Board of Directors had approved the policy for marks and criteria of marks for interview, rather than merely a copy of the promotion policy. In view of the above, the Commission observes that though a pointwise reply was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 17.08.2017, correct and complete information has not been provided to him on point nos. 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) and 5(6) of the RTI application. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide a copy of the Promotion rules of NTPC, as in 1993, along with the ACRs of the appellant for the years in which review DPC was held i.e., 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, sought vide point nos. 5(1) and 5(3) of the RTI application, to the appellant. As regards point no. 5(6) of the RTI application, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a copy of the approval of the Board of Directors regarding the policy for marks and criteria of marks for interview to the appellant. With respect to point no. 5(7) of the RTI application, the Commission directs the respondent to once again make due efforts to thoroughly search the respondent's database to trace the records pertaining to point no. 5(7) Page 5 of 7 of the RTI application and furnish the information sought for. In case, the respondent is unable to trace the relevant records, he shall file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no records relating to information sought for vide point no. 5(7) of the RTI application are available with respondent. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant.
7. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. 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 21.05.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) NTPC Limited, Corporate Centre, Core-6, 6th Floor, NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), NTPC Limited, Corporate Centre, Core-6, 6th Floor, NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
3. Shri Ravindra Kumar Sood Page 7 of 7