Central Information Commission
Gurinder Singh Sandhu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 15 October, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2017/125526
In the matter of:
Gurinder Singh Sandhu
...Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Jyoti Trivedi
CPIO/Director, Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex,
Block - A, INA, New Delhi - 110023.
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 02.08.2016
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : 02.08.2016
FAA Order : 18.10.2016
Second Appeal : 10.04.2017
Date of hearing : 03.07.2018, 08.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 02.8.2016 sought information on ten points regarding the departmental enquiry that had been dropped vide CVC Memorandum ref no: 92K/RA/110 as under:
(1) Against how many number of officials of BALCO and SAIL complaints had been received for conducting of enquiry and against which officials of these two organizations action had been taken/initiated.Page 1 of 7
(2) How many and which officials from BALCO had been examined as witnesses in connection with the enquiry against Sh G S Sandhu along with list of all such witnesses.
(3) Under what circumstances the appellant had been examined as a prosecution witness in the enquiry against him also, names of all officials who had been examined either as PW or as accused.
(4) On what basis the accused was exonerated.
(5) Whether the information regarding the result of the enquiry had been provided to the CBI at any time.
(6) Other related information.
The CPIO's reply is not on record. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 02.08.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 10.10.2016. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 10.04.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri Kundan Singh,
Director cum CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had received the RTI application dated 02.08.2016 on 03.08.2016 and transferred it u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act on 18.10.2016.
Page 2 of 7The appellant was not present to plead for his case.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the above mentioned RTI application was transferred beyond the mandatory period of five days counted from the date of receipt of the said RTI application by the respondent authority as stated u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. Secondly, no final reply was provided to the appellant in all these years. For this lapse, Ms. Jyoti Trivedi, the then CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission needs to be issued show cause notice. Accordingly, a Show Cause notice is issued to the then CPIO, Ms. Jyoti Trivedi, Central Vigilance Commission u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
(i) Why delayed transfer u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act was done;
(ii) why no final reply was provided to the appellant in all these years.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the present address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The then respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO.
The Commission observed that information on point no 1 i.e. only the number of persons of Balco against whom complaints had been received can be provided, on point no 2, only the number of officials who had been examined as witnesses can be provided, information in regard to point no 3 (Ist part) & point 4 are not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Information in regard to point no 3 (later Page 3 of 7 part) cannot be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Information on point nos. 5, 7 and 8 of the stated RTI application can be provided. On point no 6, only number of enquiries that had been conducted by the CVC pertaining to Balco can be provided. On point no 9, number of officers of Balco who had been involved in the said enquiry can be provided. Reply on whether the then CMD/Balco had been informed or not can be provided. On point no 10, a copy of the letter from the CVC to the Ministry of mines can be provided if it pertains to the appellant. In case third parties are found to be involved in this case, due procedure as stipulated under section 10 of the RTI Act should be applied.
With regard to the second part of the RTI application seeking copies of certain documents, copies of annexures as discussed above should be provided. Copy of the deposition of the appellant should be provided to the appellant. A copy of the conclusion of the order exonerating Director(Commercial), Balco after the inquiry was concluded can be provided. However due procedure envisaged under section 10 of the RTI Act is to be applied. Copies of memos dated 07.03.2000 and 24.05.2000 should also be supplied to the appellant subject to the application of Section 10 of the RTI Act. A copy of the CFSL report no. 99/D-815 cannot be provided as the same is exempted u/s 8(1)j of the RTI Act.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to some points mentioned in the said RTI application, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record as discussed above in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 45 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
Page 4 of 7The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above Show cause/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 08.10.2018
Respondent : Smt Jyoti Trivedi
The then Director,
Central Vigilance Commission
In her written submission dated 02.08.2018, Smt. Jyoti Trivedi, the then CPIO & Director, CVC submitted as under:
(i) That the applicant Sh. Gurinder Singh Sandhu submitted an RTI application dated 02.08.2016 to the Commission, seeking certain information under RTI Act.
(ii) She being the CPIO, CVC replied to the above RTI application vide letter No. CVC/RTI/16/583-323575 dated 30.08.2016 which was well within the stipulated time frame of one month
(iii) Thereafter, the applicant filed his First appeal to the Appellate Authority vide his appeal dated 16.09.2016 and the First Appellate Authority, having considered the appeal of the appellant and the CPIO order dated 30.08.2016, directed the CPIO to forward the Appellant's RTI application to SAIL, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, for further necessary action in the matter.
(iv) Accordingly, in compliance with the order of the First Appellate Authority, she transferred the RTI Application dated 02.08.2016 to the concerned Deptt. Viz. SAIL vide letter No. CVC/RTI/16/583 dated 25.10.2016 She further submitted that in the light of the facts mentioned above, she had not violated any provision of the RTI Act. Firstly, in the capacity of CPIO, she had replied to the applicant's RTI application dated 02.08.2016 vide letter dated Page 5 of 7 30.08.2016, i.e., within the stipulated period of one month. Secondly, the transfer of the application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act was not the decision of the CPIO. It was transferred only in compliance of the order dated 18.10.2016 of the FAA. The CPIO as part of his duty in this case, had already replied to the original application of the applicant vide CPIO's letter dated 30.08.2016. Further, since the application was transferred to the SAIL under intimation to the appellant, the final reply, if any, was required to be given by the concerned authority.
She prayed that her submissions may be considered by the Commission and the show cause proceedings against her may be dropped.
Decision:
Based on the written explanation of the concerned respondent authority and her oral submission made during the hearing, it was noted by the Commission that the first reply to the above mentioned RTI application was provided by the then CPIO, Smt Jyoti Trivedi on 30.08.2016. The transfer of the RTI application u/s 6(3) dated 25.10.2016 was done only in compliance of the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 18.10.2016, who by virtue of its order directed the CPIO to transfer the RTI application to SAIL considering the fact that some of the information as sought by the RTI applicant might be available with them. Hence, there was no delay on the part of the CPIO to transfer the RTI application in question.
It was also observed by the Commission that after transfer of the above mentioned RTI application to SAIL, it was the responsibility of the concerned CPIO, SAIL to provide a final reply to the appellant. On this count also, the answering respondent had no role to play.
The Commission finds the above explanation of the then CPIO, Smt Jyoti Trivedi just and proper. She had provided timely reply to the RTI application and had also complied with the order of the then FAA dated 18.10.2016 under the Page 6 of 7 circumstances. It would be appropriate to close the show-cause proceeding initiated in the present case in the interest of justice.
With the above observation, the show-cause proceeding is closed. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय)
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु!त )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
Page 7 of 7