Central Information Commission
K Balu vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 31 March, 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/BHELD/A/2021/607267
K Balu ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
RTI Cell, Corporate Office, BHEL House,
SIRI Fort, New Delhi - 110049.
2. CPIO
Bharat Heavy Electricals
Limited, Human Resource
Management, Sr. Exe (HR-Law),
Administrative Building, BHEL,
Trichy - 620014, TamilNadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 30/03/2022
Date of Decision : 30/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/10/2020
CPIO replied on : 18/11/2020
First appeal filed on : 15/12/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/03/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.10.2020 seeking the following information:
1) Does BHEL have any Litigation Policy?
2) If, BHEL has the Litigation Policy, kindly provide me a copy of that Litigation Policy applicable to BHEL Corporate Office and BHEL Units.
3) A representation dated 01/09/2020 was submitted to the CPIO on her email ID ([email protected]) on 02/09/2020.
a. Kindly provide the date of receipt of this representation i.e. the date on which the CPIO had opened this email.
b. Details of action taken by the CPIO on this my representation.
4) Please provide the soft copy of BHEL Personnel Manual. In para 9 of the CIC decision dated 29/05/2020 in the Second Appeal No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407, it has been mentioned as under:
Further, the respondent has categorically informed the appellant that the recruitment process is online, but, all the intermediate documents are available in hard-copy. The further final outcome of the recruitment process is in the public domain.
5) Kindly provide the information relevant to the above mentioned CIC Decision a. Kindly provide the number of files containing the details of final outcome and its size that were placed in the public domain.
b. Kindly provide the public domain link in which final outcome of the recruitment process is available.
c. Please provide the copy of document informing the applicant i.e. appellant in CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407 that the recruitment process is online but all the intermediate documents are available in hard-copy. Further final outcome of the recruitment process is in public domain. d. Kindly provide the list of intermediate documents generated during the recruitment process.
e. Kindly provide the authority having powers for approving the details that are to be placed in the public domain.
f. Kindly provide the authority that approved to place the final outcome of the recruitment process in the public domain.
g. Kindly copy of the approval from the competent authority to place the final outcome of the recruitment process in the public domain.
2h. Kindly provide the soft copy of final outcome that were placed in the public domain.
6) The applicant have submitted a representation to Mr. Balvir Talwar the Head of Corporate HR, requesting to arrange for digital payment for RTI and document fee under the RTI through email ([email protected]) on 20/08/2020.
a. Kindly provide the date of receipt of this representation i.e. the date on which Mr. Balvir Talwar had opened this email.
b. Details of action taken by Mr. Bavir Talwar on this representation.
7) The applicant has submitted his rejoinder on 07/03/2017 regarding illegal appointment to Mr. Raja Manohar the then Executive Director of BHEL-Tiruchirappalli for BHEL Tiruchirappalli. a. Kindly provide the authority that verified the contents of this representation dated 07/03/2017.
b. Details of action taken by the appointing authority or corporate management against these illegal appointments. The first appeal against the decision on RTI application dated 16/06/2019 bearing online registration no. BHELD/R/2019/50179 was registered as BHELD/A/2019/60050. The status of this appeal display as under:
APPEAL FORWARDED TO CONCERNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY No details of FAA are furnished and no response from the FAA also.
8) Kindly provide me the details such as name, designation address. Email and contact number of the First Appellate Authority for the first appeal no.
BHELD/A/2019/60050 The first appeal against the decision on RTI application dated 25/05/2019 bearing online registration no. BHELD/R/2019/50155 was registered as BHELD/A/2019/60047. The status of this appeal display as under:
APPEAL FORWARDED TO CONCERNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY No details of FAA are furnished and no response from the FAA also.
9) Kindly provide me the details such as name, designation address. Email and contact number of the First Appellate Authority for the first appeal no. BHELD/A/2019/60047.
10) A representation requesting to consider CIC order while transferring the RTI Application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act dated 10/03/2020 was submitted to the CPIO on her email ID ([email protected]) on 10/03/2020 and subsequently a reminder was also forwarded on 18/03/2020. The CPIO is yet to respond and hence the applicant is confined to invoke RTI Act.
a. Kindly provide the date of receipt of this representation i.e. the date on which the CPIO had opened this email.
3b. Details of action taken by the CPIO on this representation dated 10/03/2020.
11) A representation requesting to furnish the details of BHEL officials involved in the transfer of the applicant to BHEL-Tiruchirappalli dated 13/07/2019 to Mr. Anil Kapoor the then Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited- Corporate Office, New Delhi.
a. Date of receipt of the representation dated 13/07/2019 by the office of the Executive Director/HR.
b. Please provide a copy of the representation dated 13/07/2019 with noting and instruction etc. c. Details of action taken on this representation.
12) A representation requesting to initiate disciplinary action against Mr. Augustin Xaxa for having furnished false information dated 12/07/2019 to Mr. Anil Kapoor the then Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited- Corporate Office, New Delhi.
a. Date of receipt of the representation dated 12/07/2019 by the office of the Executive Director/HR.
b. Please provide a copy of the representation dated 12/07/2019 with noting and instruction etc. c. Details of action taken on this representation.
13) A representation requesting to direct BHEL-Ranipet and BHEL-Trichy to clarify whether the transfer order issued to the applicant was on his request or for official exigency dated 17/06/2019 to Mr. D Bandyopadhyay, the then Director-HR, BHEL Corporate Office, the then Director/HR, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited- Corporate Office.
a. Date of receipt of the representation dated 17/06/2019 by the office of the Director/HR.
b. Please provide a copy of the representation dated 17/06/2019 with noting and instruction etc,.
c. Details of action taken on this representation
14) For the information request vide query nos7 to 15 in RTI application bearing registration no. BHELD/ R/2019/50467 regard to the recruitment of Engineer Trainee and Executive Trainee -2019, the CPIO had informed that recruitment process is still underway. Hence, no information can be provided at this stage. a. Kindly provide the recruitment status i.e. completed or not? b. If it is completed, please reply to the query nos. 7 to 15 in RTI application bearing registration no. BHELD/ R/2019/50467 which are pending. c. Kindly provide the number files containing the details of final outcome and its size that were placed in the public domain.
4d. Kindly provide the public domain link in which final outcome of the recruitment process is available.
e. Kindly provide the list of intermediate documents generated during the recruitment process.
f. Kindly provide the authority having powers for approving the details that are to be placed in the public domain.
g. Kindly provide the authority that approved to place the final outcome of the recruitment process in the public domain.
h. Kindly copy of the approval from the competent authority to place the final outcome of the recruitment process in the public domain. i. Kindly provide the soft copy of final outcome that were placed in the public domain.
15) The applicant has submitted his grievance to initiate action against the corruption in recruitment through Central Government PG Portal bearing registration no DHIND/E/2020/00207. This grievance was closed by BHEL Officials without specifying any reason.
a. Kindly provide the details of officials' designation, who were involved in the disposal of this grievance.
b. Copy of documents or records or notes or e-mails or any other form of documents generated or used for the decision in disposing of this grievance.
16) The applicant have submitted his representation dated 08/02/2018 regarding admission of harassment by BHEL officials to Mr. Raja Manohar the then Executive Director of BHEL-Tiruchirappalli a. Date of receipt of the representation dated 08/02/2018 by the office of the Executive Director/BHEL-Tiruchirappalli.
b. Please provide a copy of the representation dated 08/02/2018 with noting and instruction etc. c. Details of action taken on this representation."
The CPIO/Respondent no. 1 furnished a point wise reply except for points no. 7 to 16 to the appellant on 18.11.2020. Further, for point no. 7 and 16, the Respondent no. 1 transferred the RTI Application to the Respondent no. 2 under due intimation to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
5Feeling 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 no. 1: Shilpi Sikka, Dy. Manager (Legal) & CPIO present through intra- video conference.
Respondent no. 2: M. Nithya, HR (Law) & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Respondents no. 1 & 2 invited attention of the bench towards their written submissions dated 24.03.2022 and 28.03.2022 wherein it has been mentioned that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant.
The Appellant interjected to express his dissatisfaction with the fact that the recruitment related information as sought by him were not made public by the Respondent authority. In response to it, the Respondent no. 1 denied the Appellant's contentions and apprised the Commission that all such information including the names of candidates/ roll numbers/marks are in the public domain and the same can be accessed from the official website of BHEL.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is indeterminate and cumbersome and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. As it appears it would be impossible for the public authorities to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the CPIOs to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. Moreover, in the instant RTI Application, the Appellant has sought for a multitude of details related to the personal records of various third parties, which would stand exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.6
Even if the Commission were to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant during hearing, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyayand others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating 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 given to 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 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."
7Having observed as above, the Commission does not find it expedient to question the merits of CPIOs' reply which adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
The Appellant is also advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
In view of the above, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8