Central Information Commission
N Suryaprakash Rao vs Ccmb, Hyderabad on 25 June, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
कें द्रीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुननरका, नई दिल्ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/CCMBH/A/2019/602477
+638776+639082+645645
In the matter of:
N Suryaprakash Rao
... Appellant
VS
1. CPIO & Administrative Officer
CSIR- Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB),
Uppal Road,
Habsiguda, Telangana State, Hyderabad - 500007
2. PIO
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
Anusandhan Bhawan,
2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondents
Date of hearing : 24.06.2020
Date of decision : 24.06.2020
File Nos. RTI application CPIO First Appeal FAA's Second
filed on replied filed on Order on Appeal
on Dated
1.602477 30.11.18 28.12.18 03.01.19 07.02.19 07.02.19
2.638776 21.01.19 01.03.19 05.03.19 Not on 22.04.19
record
3.639082 29.01.19 18.03.19 23.03.19 24.04.19 25.04.19
4.645645 16.04.19 24.05.19 31.05.19 Not on 16.07.19
record
Note: The above listed cases of the appellant were clubbed together, as these are RTI applications involving similar subject matter and same parties. For the sake of brevity, cases were clubbed and adjudicated by a common order. The hearing too was conducted in a similar fashion.
1Information Sought in File no. 602477 :
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the strength of Assistants of Stores & Purchase in CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad as on 1st December, 2016.
2. Provide the strength of skilled contract workers and retired persons working under Shri Dharmendra Kumar, Stores & Purchase Officer, CSIR-
CCMB, Hyderabad for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 and their duty roster.
3. Provide the strength of other Stores & Purchase Staff working under Shri Dharmendra Kumar, Stores & Purchase Officer, CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017.
4. And other related information.
Information Sought in File no. 638776:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has not received satisfactory reply on points 1,5 and 6 of his RTI applications. The said points are mentioned below:
5. Grounds for levelling the same charges against Shri K. Shankar, Senior Technician(2), Staff No.1115, CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad vide Memorandum no. CCMB/Vig.3/2017 dated 20/07/2017 after giving a gap of more than one year, that were already stated vide Office Memorandum No. CCMB/XI(17)/1983-Estt. dated 8th January, 2016 issued by CSIR -CCMB, Hyderabad and grounds for making Shri K. Shankar to appear before two different Committees constituted by the Director, CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad causing untold mental torture to him.
5. Copy of gate passes issued to skilled, semi-skilled and un-skilled contract workers under the signature of their Section Heads in CSIR-CCMB, Hyderbad to go out of CSIR-CCMB during office hours and also during lunch time for the years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 on official and personal works
6. Copy of leave letters submitted by skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled contract workers working in CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad for the year 2014- 2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017
3. Information Sought in File no. 639082:
2The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copy of all the leave letters submitted by Miss Anupama Kumari, Data Entry Operator during her tenure in CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad.
2. Grounds for suspending the appellant without serving charge-sheet to him before-hand vide Order No. CCMB/IX(29)/89-Estt dated 20th December, 2016.
3. Grounds for not taking any disciplinary action against Shri Dharmendra Kumar, Stores & Purchase Officer, CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad despite receipt of appellant's mails against him dated 20/02/2018, 24/10/2018 and 26/01/2019 respectively along with documentary evidence.
And other related information.
4. Information Sought in File no. 645645:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide a copy of the Promotion Order/O.M., of Sh. R.V.Subba Rao (D' Office), CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad promoting him from the post of Junior Stenographer to the post of Senior Stenographer.
2. Provide a copy of the transfer and Posting Order/O.M., of Sh. R.V.Subba Rao (D' Office), CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad promoting him from the post Senior Stenographer to the Post of Private Secretary and transferring and posting him to some other CSIR sister laboratory on promotion as Private Secretary. Order issued by CSIR headquarters.
3. Provide a copy of the O.M. of superannuation of Shri. R.V.Subba Rao (D' Office), Private Secretary, CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad issued by CSIR-CCMB Hyderabad.
4. And other related information.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Smt. P Sudha Rani, CPIO, CSIR- (CCMB) Hyderabad; Shri Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, CSIR, New Delhi Grounds for Second Appeal The appellant is not satisfied with the response of the CPIO.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:3
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply in respect of points no. 2,4,6,7,8,9 and 10 in case no. 602477. He further submitted that in reply to point no. 2 the CPIO made a statement that Duty Roster of contract staff has been already provided to him vide letter dated 19.09.2018 which is absolutely wrong. He pointed out that only muster roll was enclosed. In respect of case no. 638776 he submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply in respect of points no. 1,5 and 6 of the RTI application. In respect of case no. 639082 and 645645 he contested the reply in respect of points no. 1 to 8 of the RTI applications.
Shri Sanjay Kumar submitted that appropriate replies were given in all the above mentioned 4 RTI applications. He further submitted that they have been receiving RTI applications of the appellant since 2018 and in the year 2020, the Commission has passed two orders till date upholding the reply of the CPIO. He relied on the order of the Commission dated 03.03.2020 in case no. 144227 and 28.04.2020 in case no. 635339.
He further submitted that in respect of case no. 602477- points no. 1,2,3 were appropriately replied by the CPIO, CSIR CCMB. In respect of point no. 4, transfer /posting order of Mr Dharmendra, SPO, CCMB was given by the CPIO and FAA CSIR-CCMB. He also pointed out that transfer/ posting order of Shri Dharmendra, SPO CCMB was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 13.02.2019 in response to his RTI application dated 21.01.2019. In respect of point no. 6 he pointed out that service books are maintained by CSIR-CCMB.
He did not comment in respect of points no.7 and 10. In respect of points no. 8&9 he submitted hat this is not covered under the purview of the RTI Act. In respect of case nos. 638776, 639082 and 645645 he reiterated the replies of CSIR-CCMB.
He summed up stating that the CSIR is a transparent body and adequate replies were given to all his RTI applications.
Smt. Sudha Rani submitted that the required information sought by the applicant was given to him as per availability of records with due diligence. The appellant contended that the penalty order dated 04.07.2017 issued by Dr Rakesh K. Mishra, Director, CCMB is unacceptable to him as it was issued for no fault of his. He also submitted that the matter is pending before Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, O.A No. 96 of 2018. On a query by the Commission, the appellant submitted that he was harassed by the department and was forced to go on compulsory retirement. He was 4 advised that he should wait for the decision of the Competent adjudicating body to redress his service grievance.
Observations:
At the outset it was noted that previously also 7 cases of the appellant were disposed of, in which he asked for the following information:
In File no.: CIC/CCMBH/A/2018/633397, the appellant sought the following information: 1. A copy of the Annual Rate Contract entered into with various contractors by CCMB for supply of skilled, semi skilled and unskilled workers to CCMB for the year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. A copy of the duty roster of the above mentioned contractual workers for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. 2 3. Copies of all the transfer and posting orders of Dr. Bandi Srinivas, issued during his tenure in CSIR-CCMB, Hyderbad as Stores and Purchase officer. In File no.: CIC/CCMBH/A/2018/636365, the appellant in his second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on the following points of the RTI: 5. Reasons for not constituting any enquiry committee and not taking any disciplinary action against Dr A Veerabhadra Rao, employee of CSIRCCMB, Hyderbad despite the compliant made by the appellant to Dr Rakesh K Mishra, Director, CSIR-CCMB. Reasons for not taking any disciplinary action against Shri J Shankar Rao, Controller of Administration, CSIR-CCMB, Hyderbad for misconduct of dishonouring his transfer and posting order bearing office memorandum No. 3-4(C)/2015-El dated 30/03/2016 issued by Shri Rajeev Sharma, Under Secretary, CSIR hqs. 7. Reasons for not taking any disciplinary action against Dr. B Srinivas, Stores and Purchase Officer, CSIR-CCMB for misconduct of dishonouring his transfer and posting order, bearing office memorandum No. 34(C)/2015-El dated 26/10/2009 issued by Shri C Manavazhagan, Deputy Secretary(LA), CSIR hqs. And other related information. In File no.: CIC/CSIRD/A/2018/635339 the appellant has sought the complete service particulars of the following CSIR employees (i.e. their date of joining as Junior Stenographer, their date of Financial up- gradation (i.e. ACP and MACP) etc.): 1. Mrs. Pratima Banerjee, CSIR-IICB, Kolkata 2. Sri Sankar Bhakta, CSIR-IICB, Kolkata 3. Sri Rabindranath Das, CSIR- IICB, Kolkata 4. Sri Gautam Saha, CSIR-IICB, Kolkata 5. Sri Sankar Santra, CSIR- IICB, Kolkata 6. Mrs. Moumita Majumdar, CSIR-IICB, Kolkata 7. Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, CSIR - NISTADS, New Delhi 8. Smt. Niraja Devi, CSIR- SERC, Chennai 9. Smt. Niraja Pasupathy, CSIR- SERC, Chennai 10. Smt. Sarita Sethi, CSIR- CRRI, New Delhi In File no.:- CIC/CHRDG/A/2018/144227 the appellant in his 5 second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied with the reply given to Point 1 of his RTI application, which is given below: 1. Copy of all the transfer and posting orders of Dr. Bandi Srinivas which were issued to him during his tenure in CSIR-CCMB (Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology), Hyderabad as Stores & Purchase Officer. The said information is not available on the website of the CSIR. In CIC/CCMBH/A/2018/122034 the appellant sought information under 8 points (i) Copy of the letter issued by CCMB engaging Shri Sharath Kumar as Data Entry Operator, (ii) Copy of the letter issued by CCMB engaging Shri Raj Kumar as Data Entry Operator, (iii) Set of attested copy of Central CivilServices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 along with latest amendments asmade applicable to employees of CSIR, (iv) Set of attested copy of CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964along with latest amendments as made applicable to employees of CSIR, (v) Copy of the Rule supporting the written statement of Shri J. Shankar Rao, controller of Administration,CCMB, dated 02.01.2017 that a suspended employee cannot enter the office premiseswithout gate pass, (vi) copy of the rule exempting the Common Cadre Officers of CSIR fromreporting for their duties at their new place of posting, (vii) Copy of the Rule supporting theCommon Cadre Officers of CSIR to retain at their present place of posting despite gettingtheir transfer and posting orders to report for their duties at their new place of posting, (viii)Copy of all the Transfer and Posting Oms/Orders of Dr. Bandi Srinivas, the then stores &Purchase Officer, CCMB, that were issued to him during his tenure in CCMB. In File no. CIC/CCMBH/A/2018/627368 the appellant sought the certified copy of annual rate contract entered into with various contractors by Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMBH)for supply of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers to CCMB for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, copy of duty roster, copy of all transfer and posting orders of Dr. Bandi Srinivas that were issued to him during the tenure in CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad as stores and purchase officer. In File no. CIC/CECRI/A/2018/627370 the appellant sought all transfer and posting orders of Dr. Bandi Srinivas that were issued to him during his tenure in CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad as stores and purchase officer, copy of details of those stenographers who joined either in CSIR or in sister CSIR laboratories after 05.04.1989 granted first financial upgradation after
05.04.2001 under ACP/MACP, promoted as Sr. Stenographers after 24.03.2014 and were drawing the pay exceeding Rs. 11,860 as on 01.01.2006 in the pay band of R. 9300-34,800 prior to fixation of pay on implementation of CAT Lucknow bench order in OA No. 37/2011.
6From a bare perusal of the 4 RTI applications heard today and the RTI applications which were decided previously, it was noted that the appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his right to Information as being absolute and unconditional and is rather resorting to misuse of this Act to settle his service grievance against the respondent authorities. In this context, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely on the following decisions:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] held that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are givento other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and 7 furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
In the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public 8 authority or settle personal grievances for which he should approach the grievance redressal forum in the organization. In this case as his case is already pending with the Central Administrative Tribunal he should wait for disposal of the same, instead of flooding the public authority with RTI applications. His multiple RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of CSIR and if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/ repeated/multiple RTI questions. This is undoubtedly misuse and it has to be checked. He cannot use the RTI route to settle grievances like his compulsory retirement. In earlier cases, limited relief was granted and it was noted that in the present case also replies were given and now further relief cannot be granted considering the fact that he is in the habit of filing repeated RTI applications asking for service particulars of third parties.
Decision:
The Commission has clubbed the above referred matters for adjudication as the subject matter of all these matters pertain to similar grievances of the appellant. The nature of queries in all of these matters is such that largely seeks information regarding service particulars of third parties. These Appeals reveal that the appellant in the garb of seeking information is flooding the public authority with similar RTI applications. The earlier bench of the Commission in a similar case of a different party in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002319-SA held as follows:
"16. Filing of multiple RTI on the same subject creates fear among the public authority. They feel tormented by such disgruntled/ retired employees consuming through RTI their precious resource apart from causing mental agony...."
A coordinate bench of the Commission in the matter of Ex MWO S P Bajpai vs CPIO, Dept of Personal Services vide decision dated 24.10.2018 held as follows:
"Upon a conjoint reading of the above dicta and the perusal of facts on record, it is established well beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant is in a habit of misusing his right to information. Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future. CPIO is advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the subject of grant of Honorary Commission or anything related to service related grievance emanating from this subject in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission."9
Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the appeals, the Commission deems it appropriate to dismiss these appeals. The Commission hereby rejects all the contentions of the appellant and orders no relief whatsoever in the matter. From the averments of the appellant, it is rather apparent that his only intention was to harass the public authority as well as to waste the time and resources of the respondents and the Commission. He is therefore cautioned to refrain from filing such frivolous RTI applications on the same subject matter time and again and rather use the RTI act wisely and appropriately. In case any such repeated second appeals or complaints on the same or similar subject matter is filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिनांक / Date 10