Central Information Commission
Santosh Kumar Pal vs Hindustan Cables Ltd. on 24 June, 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/HCLTD/A/2021/121298
Santosh Kumar Pal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Hindustan Cables Limited, RTI
Cell, Corporate Office, Flat
No. J-0, Golf Link Apartment,
50, Chanditala Lane, Kolkata-700040,
West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/06/2022
Date of Decision : 23/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/01/2021
CPIO replied on : 05/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 18/03/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 27/04/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/05/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2021 seeking the following information:1
1. The name and address of the person signed the annexed letter (Signed as Consultant-Admin) dated 25.06.2020.
2. Whether the abovementioned letter was issued with the approval of the competent Authority- If the answer is yes, please provide a copy of that approval
3. The following persons of corporate office got full remuneration of the period when they were on sick leave.
[(A). Amal Kumar Bose, (B). Tirthankar Roy (C). Narayan Chandra Saha, (D). Amit Kumar Ghosh] Question No.
(i) Whether their leave with full pay was approved by the Competent Authority (i.e. - CMD)
(ii) If the answer is affirmative, please provide Copy of that approval.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 05.03.2021 as under -
"Point 1- From the records we find that the letter no. HCL/Corp/Admin/ 2020- 2019 dated 25.06.2020 was issued by the Company to Shri Santosh Kumar pal. The signature of the person who signed for Consultant -Admin is not legible.
Address is Flat No. J-0, Golf Link Apartment 50, Chanditala Lane, Kolkata 700040.
However, we enclose a certified true copy of the said letter no. HCL/Corp/ Admin/2020-21/209 dated 25.06.2020, for your record.
Point 2- Letter no. HCL/Corp/Admin / 2020-21/ 209 dated 25.06.2020 was issued with the approval of the Competent Authority. However, copy of the approval is not available.
Point 3 - Reference is made to the office order no. CORP/HCL/2019/106 dated 17.12.2019 conveying following instructions of the Competent Authority for all Consultants/Advisers:-
(1) Maintenance of record of attendance and introduction of appropriate attendance register at the earliest.
(2) Any unauthorized absence / absence beyond the terms and conditions will be liable for deduction of consultancy/advisory fees, as appropriate.
The order also made it clear that Consultants/ Advisers are contractually not eligible for any absence from duty or leave with pay.
2The said office order was implemented at Corporate office w.e.f . 17.12.2019.
Prior to 17.12.2019, no attendance register was maintained by the Company for Consultants/ Advisers, in its absence the Company is not in a position to reply on payment of remuneration while on sick leave for the period prior to 17.12.2019.
For the period on and from 17.12.2019 - deduction of remuneration is done while on sick leave."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2021. FAA's order dated 27.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: M. S. Suryanarayanan, PIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant vehemently reiterated the contents of his latest written submission dated 19.06.2022, relevant portion of which is as under -
"....Sl. No. 1. In response to my letter they have intentionally hide the name & actual Address of the consultant Admin and supplied the address of the company and omitted the Name & Address, which is totally irrelevant.
Sl. No. 2- It is my presumption that one cunning consultant have issued this letter without the approval of the competent Authority to deprive me. Hence, Name & Address have not been supplied to me and the letter was signed in such a manner that nobody will be able to identify the Name & Address of the person Signing the letter. So, they have given False argument that the copy of the approval is not available.
Sl. No. 3. & 4. The CPIO has given a ridiculous arguments that prior to 17.12.2019 in attendance register was maintained.
In this connection it is pertinent to mention here that the Hindustan Cables was closed on 31.01.2017 vide cabinet Approval dated 29th Sept, 2016. In the initial stage 3 there were 77 consultant as per the appointment given by the company & informed to the ministry (DHI) and more than 20 adhoc consultants. At that point of lime there was no attendance register. But on and from 17.112019 the company has started to maintain Attendance register when there were only 15 to 20 consultants were remaining others being terminated during this period as almost all the work relating to the closure of the company was completed and the remaining consultants are sitting idle.
This story was made to safeguard Sri. Amal Kumar Bose who used to look alter personnel related work, and taken 8 month salary, when he was sick and he is still working as consultant.
I used to work as a consultant in Hindustan Cables Ltd, at the time when Sri Bose was sick. So, far as my knowledge and memory is concerned, Sri Bose got 8 month salary for sick leave without the approval of the competent Authority. Hence, he could produce the approval and tailored the story of attendance Register. Thus Sri Bose is trying to derail the fact for vested interest.
In view of the above you are requested to order the CPIO, HCL to supply the following information or the confess the fact, so that I can establish my claim to the proper Authorities...."
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated
18.06.2022, relevant portion of which is as under -
"....Shri Santosh Kumar Pal made offline RTI application dated 18.01.2021, which was replied by PIO of the Company on 05.03.2021. Dissatisfied with the reply of PIO, Shri Pal made first appeal on 18.03.2021. The FAA of the Company replied on 27.04.2021 to Shri Pal.
Engagement of consultants was started in HCL immediately after its closure on 31.01.2017 viz. w.e.f. 01.02.2017. Initially the contractually engaged consultants, did not have system of attendance register. During November 2019, there was change of Management of the Company, when the new Management introduced attendance register. The system of attendance register was implemented from 17.12.2019, as per point no.1 of the office order no. CORP/HCL/2019/106 dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure-
4). The said office order also made clear that Consultants are not contractually eligible for leave with pay. Consequently, leave details of contractually engaged consultants are not available from 01.02.2017 to 16.12.2019. Point no.2 of the office order dated 17.12.2019, states that any unauthorised absence will be liable for deduction of consultancy/advisory fees. For the period on and from 17.12.2019, deduction of monthly fee is always done for any period of absence including sickness.4
Shri Santosh Pal, former consultant submitted application for his absence only for a one day (on 26.12.2019), but he did not join the office thereafter. An office order no. CORP/PERS/2019-20/42 dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure-5) was issued wherein it was stated that Shri Pal would be allowed to join office, if so permitted by the Competent Authority based on receipt of explanation with supporting documents. Prior to nationwide COVID 19 lock down in late March 2020, no formal intimation for absence was received from Shri Pal or from his family members. Subsequently, consultancy of Shri Pal was not renewed after its expiry on 30.04.2020.
However, Shri Pal made repeated claims for payment of consultancy fees from January 2020 to May 2020, in spite of the fact that payment of fees for the period of absence (from January 2020 to April 2020), is not admissible to him in view of the order dated 17.12.2019 and that there was no valid engagement for the month of May 2020. Accordingly, his claim of the said consultancy fees was refused by the Company vide letter no. HCL/Corp/Admin/2020-21/209 dated 25.06.2020.
Aggrieved with the refusal, Shri Pal made RTI application dated 18.01.2021, requesting name and address of signatory of HCL's refusal letter dated 25.06.2020 along with copy of approval of Competent Authority. It is submitted that name of signatory is not mentioned on HCL's letter dated 25.06.2020 and approval of Competent authority is not available in the records of the Company.
It is submitted that HCL has also made mandatory disclosure u/s 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 in its home page. Further, it is submitted that HCL made suo motu disclosure of closure related information in it's homepage under the file titled "Information relating to closure of HCL and the said file contains all the above referred five annexures.
Clear reply was given by the Company to the appellant through its reply dated 05.03.2021 and FAA order dated 27.04.2021 informing that name of signatory was not mentioned on the letter dated 25.06.2020 and its approval is not available. In spite of HCL's communication, Shri Pal made second appeal on the same issues.
We submit below our reply to the second appeal made by Shri Santosh Kumar Pal :-
1. Name: Name is not available on the letter. Thus could not be provided. Address: Flat no. J-0, Golf Link Apartment, 50, Chanditala Lane, Kolkata -- 700040.
2. Copy of the approval is not found in the records of the Company. Thus not provided.
3. Engagement of consultants was started in HCL immediately after its closure on 31.01.2017 viz. w.e.f. 01.02.2017. Initially the contractually engaged consultants at Kolkata, did not have system of attendance register. During November 2019, there was change of Management, when new Management introduced attendance register from 17.12.2019, as per point no.1 of the order no. CORP/HCL/2019/106 dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure-4).5
4. Consequently, leave details of contractually engaged consultants are not available from 01.02.2017 to 16.12.2019. Point no.2 of the order dated 17.12.2019, states that any unauthorised absence will be liable for deduction of consultancy/advisory fees.
For the period on and from 17.12.2019, deduction of monthly fee is always done for any period of absence including sickness.
Answer to QN(i) -- As per record, leave with full pay was never approved Answer to QN(ii) - Not applicable since answer to QN(i) is not affirmative."
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the information sought by the Appellant concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also contains the elements of personal information including the sick leave pay of the other officers which is hit by Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
His attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Furthermore, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged 6 under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it factual clarification tendered by the PIO during hearing adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act. In fact, the issues raised by the Appellant are more in the nature of a grievance and therefore, he is advised to approach the appropriate authority /PG portal through a representation to redress his grievances.
However, upon insistence of the Appellant, the PIO is directed to file an affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed with the Appellant deposing categorically that records of information sought for are not available in their office records. The said affidavit should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8