Central Information Commission
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. on 13 October, 2023
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/EPILTA/A/2023/126207 +
CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/628833 +
CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/625636
SANJIV KUMAR GUPTA ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Engineering Projects (India)
Ltd. Core 3, Scope Complex,7,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/10/2023
Date of Decision : 04/10/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal (s):
RTI application filed on : 17/04/2023, 26/03/2023 & 21/03/2023
CPIO replied on : 21/04/2023, 02/06/2023 & 18/04/2023
First appeal filed on : 21/04/2023, 20/05/2023 & 21/04/2023
First Appellate Authority order : 17/05/2023, 24/05/2023 & 22/05/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/05/2023, 10/06/2023 & 23/05/2023
1
CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/126207
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Please give a copy of document showing that first stage advice of CVC in this case was available in EPIL when decision was taken by DA in this case.
2. Please provide the copy of first stage advice from the records of EPIL or simply says it is not available in EPIL records."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 21.04.2023 stating as under:
"1. The sought document may be clearly spelt out.
2. The sought document is confidential document of third party, the disclosure of same is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2023. FAA's order, dated 17.05.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/628833 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"A dismissal order was passed by DA of EPIL in a TRIDA tender case of HPL against Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, ex ED Engg. Nothing about loss in this case was mentioned in memorandum of charges, inquiry report, final show cause notice and dismissal order.
1. Please give the copy of document showing the amount of loss occurred in above case with supporting documents as available in EPIL."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.06.2023 stating as under:
2"No such supporting documents available as the original source of information is HPL."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2023. FAA's order, dated 24.05.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned has gone through the query raised. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority sought clarification regarding said delay from PIO, EPI and as per the PIO, the information sought could not be provided as the PIO is on long leave due to personal difficulty. Therefore, the PIO is directed to furnish the information sought within next 15 days."
CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/625636 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please provide the copy of return of investment of Gratuity amount of employees for EPIL by Gratuity trust year wise starting from 2012-13 till current financial year."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.04.2023 stating as under:
"The available information (FY 2016-17 to FY 2021-22) consisting of 5 pages is enclosed herewith."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2023. FAA's order dated 22.05.2023 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: S. K. Sethi, GM & PIO along with Anamika Kashyap, DGM, Prabjot Kaur Manager & Atul Kapoor, Manager (HR) present in person.3
The Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that he was working with the Respondent organization on deputation basis and during the period of his service while being transferred to parent organization; an arbitrary dismissal order was issued against him; owing to which all the medical benefits and his gratuity amount were withheld by the organization. Such circumstances led him to the filing of instant RTI Applications. However, he is aggrieved with the fact that complete desired information has not been furnished by the CPIO till date. He further added that in case file no. CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/126207, a copy of first stage advice of CVC in his case was available in EPIL records, yet it has not been shared with him. While in case file CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/628833, supportive documents against the alleged loss suffered by EPIL have not been provided to him. Also, in case file no. CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/625636, complete set of 'return of investment' on the Gratuity amount of employees for EPIL by Gratuity trust year wise starting from 2012-13 till current financial year has not been provided to him, ignoring the fact that it must be available in the balance sheet of the Respondent organization.
In response to the Appellant's contention, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submissions filed prior to the hearing, relevant extracts of which (case wise) are reproduced below in verbatim -
File no. CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/126207:
"...The appellant was replied that the sought information is confidential document of the third part, the disclosure of the same is exempted under section 8(1)(d) and section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
...as per the concerned division, the information sought by the appellant is a Confidential document of CVC and was transferred from another organization to EPI. Hence, being a confidential document of the third party, the same cannot be shared by EPI to the appellant."
File no. CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/628833:
"...The appellant was provided with the available information with EPI i.e. from the F.Y. 2016-17 to 2021-22.
It may be informed that due to fire in EPI in the year 2016, the previous information is not available in the office. The copy of FIR is attached herewith." Here, the Appellant interjected to contest that even the details of 'return on investment' for F.Y. 2019-20 has not been shared with him and requested the 4 Bench to intervene for tracing the information available in the Balance Sheet. In this regard, at the behest of the Commission, the CPIO volunteered to cull out the information from the available Balance Sheet and provide the same to the Appellant.
File no. CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/625636:
"...The appellant was replied that no such supporting documents available, as the original source of information is HPL.
In may be submitted that as per the concerned division, no such information showing the amount of loss is available in EPI. Further, it may be informed that the original source of information is Hindustan Prefab Limited (HPL)." Decision:
In case file no. CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/126207 -
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission further notes that the square denial of information by the CPIO by quoting above mentioned clause was completely inappropriate more particularly when such information as sought by the Appellant pertains to his own dismissal matter for which he has a constitutional right to know. The only pertinent exemption from disclosure of information against the information sought for appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the third party/ies which are reflected on the note sheet, remarks, correspondences etc. and cannot be divulged considering the exemptions envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of impugned RTI Application and provide an extract of relevant information i.e. first stage advice of CVC concerning the Appellant only. The said reply and information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant after redacting the names and identifying particulars of the other third party officers, which may figure from note sheet, correspondences, etc and cannot be divulged in view the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. . In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI Act for redacting the information related to the personal information of third parties, as the said provision states as under:
"...10. Severability.--5
(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information...."
The above said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
In case file no. CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/628833 -
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was non-receipt of supportive documents reflecting the amount of loss occurred in above case as available with EPIL. In response to which, the CPIO explained that the factual position regarding non-availability of such information/ records has already been intimated to the Appellant.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the response of the CPIO as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the applicants under the ambit of the RTI Act, as the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to them.
Thus, no scope for further relief lies in the instant Appeal.
In case file no. CIC/EPILTA/A/2023/628833 -
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that the core issue raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was non-receipt of complete information as sought for and in response to which, the CPIO explained that available information has already been shared with the Appellant while records of F.Y. 2012-13 onwards have been destroyed in a fire for which the CPIO enclosed a copy of FIR in support of his submission.
6Here, also the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO as it is as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Nonetheless, upon insistence of the Appellant and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the contents of RTI Application and cull out the information as is available in their Balance Sheet record and provide the same against the RTI Application in question.
The above said revised reply should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
In addition to the above, the CPIO is also directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions free of charge with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7