Shraddha Vispute vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 18 November, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shraddha Vispute vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 18 November, 2020

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                    Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                     Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                     नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं    ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2019/635484

Shraddha Vispute                                         ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम


The CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation                         ... ितवादी /Respondent
Limited, Corporate Office, Plot
No. 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, J B Tito
Marg, New Delhi.


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 23.12.2018             FA     : 02.02.2019         SA       : 06.03.2019

CPIO : 22.01.2019            FAO : 28.02.2019            Hearing : 10.11.2020

                                    ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, Plot No. 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, J B Tito Marg, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia:-

(i) Certified copy of all the documents in File No 79 (Biodata file) of Shraddha Ratilal Vispute who reported at IiPM, Gurgaon on 16-Dec- 2018 for joining, formalities and CCIM under mentioned recruitment;

(ii) Kindly provide me the reason for rejection of her candidature at the time of joining, etc. Page 1 of 3

2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 02.02.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to her. The FAA responded on 28.02.2019. She filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to her and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Udit Jain, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the information provided by the respondent on her RTI application dated 23.12.2018. The appellant submitted that when she had received the documents, it was found that complete papers from the file was not provided to her. Therefore, she had filed first appeal and had asked the respondent to give Checklist document signed by Indian Oil official at the time of joining in Gurgaon has not been shared under RTI response (as mentioned at point no. 4 of first appeal) but till date complete information has not been provided to her.

5. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and FAA vide letters dated 22.01.2019 and 28.02.2019 and submitted that information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the appellant.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant was aggrieved that complete information has not been provided to her by the respondent on her RTI application dated 23.12.2018. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that complete information has been provided to the appellant. In order to avoid any confusion and in the interest of justice, the Commission directs the respondent to facilitate inspection of records to the appellant as per her RTI application dated 23.12.2018 as per the provisions of the RTI Act on a mutually convenient time and date, within a period of 30 working days from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent should ensure that personal information of third party should not be shown to the appellant during the inspection. The appellant may take copies as desired by her after the inspection on payment of requisite photocopy charges as per the RTI Act.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Page 2 of 3

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.





                                                              नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                          Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                  सूचना आयु )
                                        Information Commissioner (सू

                                                            दनांक / Date 10.11.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स$ािपत ित)


S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)



Addresses of the parties:
1.    The CPIO,
      Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
      Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Corporate Office,
      Plot No. 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, J B Tito Marg,
      New Delhi-110049.

2.    Shraddha Vispute,




                                                                          Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission