Central Information Commission
Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil - India Government Mint, Mumbai on 3 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/IGMUM/A/2019/636929
In the matter of:
Satish Ashok Sherkhane
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
India Government Mint, Mumbai,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 20/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 15/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 17/01/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 15/02/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 27/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 02/03/2021 Date of Decision : 02/03/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Ms Rashmi Singh, Manager(HR) & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information for point no C 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8&9
1. Provide the copy of Letter no. CHO(HR)/Admn./205/10/6937 dated 14/07/2010 alongwith all documents which are executed / prepared/issued or received by IGMM.1
3. Provide the copies of terms and conditions of offer of appointment for the post of Vigilance Assistant (on deputation) w.r.t to letter No. CHO(HR)/Admn./205/10/6937 dated 14/07/2010.
5. Provide all the copies of documents which are prepared/executed or issued for the appointment of Shri K.V.K. Prasad-Vigilance Assistant (on deputation basis) as Sr. Vigilance Officer I/c IGM, Mumbai for the period from 19/07/2010 to till date along with all file noting and signature of the officer.
6-9. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information on point No. C 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the desired information on points 1, 3, 5, 6 ,7 8, & 9 was not supplied to him.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of her written submissions dated 22.02.2021 Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the FAA vide his order dated 15.02.2019 had provided the desired information on points no. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to the appellant. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply so given. Hence, no further relief can be given on these points. However, for points 8 & 9, the FAA had stated that the matter relates to vigilance and the information was denied u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. This reply is incomplete in the sense that no justification was given by the CPIO for claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and how it is relevant.
At this point, the appellant raised an objection and submitted that other two agencies including Ministry of Finance had supplied the same information to him without claiming any exemption and in such an event, the exemption claimed by the respondent authority is not sustainable. The CPIO is therefore directed to re-examine these points and provide a revised reply while taking into account the submissions of the appellant that the same information was supplied to him by some other agencies.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on points no. 8 & 9 of the RTI application as per the discussions held 2 during the hearing within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The concerned CPIO is also warned to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and to ensure that wherever an exemption is claimed, proper justification should be invariably given. The CPIO should note that in the event of failure to do so in future, the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him/her.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3