Central Information Commission
Abhijeet Sinha vs University Grants Commission on 16 November, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2020/677139
Abhijeet Sinha ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi- 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/11/2021
Date of Decision : 15/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/05/2020
CPIO replied on : 05/06/2020
First appeal filed on : 07/06/2020
First Appellate Authority's : 01/07/2020
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 06.05.2020 seeking the following information:
".... Request for each certified page of the report which was submitted by the inquiry committee to the the V, C. HBTU, Kanpur and the V. C. HBTU, Kanpur sent it to UGC vide I. no. - 77/Kul. Karya. /Shasan /2018 dated 28.12.2018 regarding the question of RSPQ no. 1819 for 02.08.2018 regarding cases of plagiarism. UGC then sent the reply to Secretary Higher Education, MHRD vide letter 0.0. No.F.13- 1/2015 (CPP-I/PU) dated 28.01.2019 in reference UGC D. 0. No.-3-41/2018(CPP-II) dated 23.08.2018. The above inquiry committee which was constituted by V.C., HBTU, Kanpur (Prof. N.B. Singh) and headed by Prof. Manindra Agarwal Dy. Director, IIT Kanpur, Chairman of inquiry committee regarding the Case of plagiarism by Prof. Vinay Kumar Pathak V. C., AKTU, Lucknow . This infamous incident caught my attention through print and electronic media and 1 got to know that Mr. Yogendra Yadav, President Swaraj India and Shri. Virat Singh had filed a complaint regarding the Plagiarism and use of Fraudulent and manufactured Bio-Data by Prof. Pathak mentioned above to MHRD and UGC. I had also filed a complaint in the same matter to Minister HRD and UGC and then through RTI inquired about the response to above complaint and received information through RTI vide letter - F.No.7-26/2018-U1 dated 16th April, 2019 by Smite Srivastava, Director, UGC and the First Appellate Authority with 3 enclosures. Being an accredited journalist it is my moral duty to expose any kind of frauds and acts of plagiarism, had already informed the authorities with evidence about the nexus of Prof. Pathak with the V. C.HBTU, Kanpur and also Manindra Agarwal, as Prof. Pathak himself is the appointing authority of Prof. N.B. Singh (V. C., HBTU) who is basically a teacher of AKTU, Lucknow and he is equivalent to a puppet of Prof. Pathak and he knowingly constituted the committee and appointed Manindra Agarawal as the head of the above inquiry committee because Prof. Agarwal is also a very close informal associate of Prof. Pathak. Prof. N.B. Singh did this on the informal orders of Prof. Pathak so that the committee can free Prof, Pathak by totally manipulated report in hope of further favors from him. The documents provided by First Appellate Authority through RTI are showing the same as above. Hence I need each certified page of the report of the inquiry committee mentioned above so as to protect public interest. The above report is now property of UGC and since it being a public office the report automatically becomes public document which is held in public domain. Kindly look into the matter and do the needful I am hopeful that the authority will take the right action and provide me with the mentioned report for further proceedings since large public interest is at stake."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 05.06.2020 stating as follows:-
"The inquiry conducted by the committee considered by Harcourt Butler Technical University, Kanpur 208002, Uttar Pradesh. Appellant may approach the University directly."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.06.2020. FAA's order dated 01.07.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO and also stated that PIO is not supposed to create information or to solve the problems raised by the applicant, only such information can be had under the Act which already exists with the Public Authority.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Vamsika, Education Officer & PIO along with Lokesh Kumar, Section Officer(CPP-I/PU,UGC) present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Application and alleged that the averred inquiry report should be disclosed in the larger public interest so that he can take up the matter further in the concerned Court of Law.
The Commission recalled at this point that in an earlier case based on the same facts and circumstances related to the averred third-party inquiry report on plagiarism, the following was observed and decided vide File No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/639403 on 19.02.2021:
"The CPIO submitted that the Ministry had sent a letter to UGC for constituting a college committee and accordingly the report sent by the college to the UGC was sent to the Ministry and since the report contains sensitive and confidential details related to a third party the same cannot be shared with the Appellant. He further submitted that in a similar case of the Appellant, the State Information Commission has also upheld the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Appellant stated that the CPIO cannot deny this information as the same was disclosed in response to a Parliament question.
The Commission remarked that the information sought for in the RTI Application is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, however, adverting to the contention of the Appellant, the CPIO was asked to rebut, in response to which the CPIO admitted to the fact that the same issue was answered in the Parliament and in this respect, he agreed to submit all the relevant documents to the Commission.
The decision in the matter was reserved.
DECISION Having perused the related documents submitted by the CPIO subsequent to the hearing with respect to the Rajya Sabha Parliament Question (RSPQ) No.1819 for 02.08.2018, the Commission observes that the UGC had informed the outcome of the averred Inquiry in response to the Parliament question.
Now, therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information related to the inquiry referred to in the RTI Application to the extent it was disclosed to the Parliament. In other words, CPIO is directed to provide the outcome of the averred inquiry as stated to the Parliament as observed above."
Vamsika, Education Officer & PIO present in the instant case admitted to having submitted their response to the Parliament question and agreed to abide by the order of the Commission.
Decision:
In furtherance of the hearing proceedings, by a square application of the earlier decision (supra), the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information related to the inquiry referred to in the RTI Application to the extent it was disclosed to the Parliament. In other words, CPIO is directed to provide the outcome of the averred inquiry as stated to the Parliament as observed above.
The aforesaid information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) 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 /