Central Information Commission
Krishan Murari Lal Pathak vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 3 September, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.CIC/ICARH/A/2019/603077
In the matter of:
Prof Krishan Murari Lal Pathak
... Appellant
VS
1.Under Secret Ary(Vigilance) & CPIO,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR),
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Rod,
New Delhi-110001
&
2. Assistant Director General(AH) /CPIO(AS),
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Rod,
New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 30/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 05/11/2018 First appeal filed on : 06/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 27/12/2018 Second Appeal dated : 15/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 02/09/2020 Date of Decision : 02/09/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Shri Ravi Dobriyal, Under Secretary (Vigilance), Dr. Ashok Kumar, ADG and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Certified copy of the rules, regulations, act and statutes and bylaws of ICAR under which a complaint for procedural lapses in commercialization of FMD LPBE packaging technology to M/s Arsh 1 Biotech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi against Dr. K.M.L Pathak, former DDG (AS) and presently Vice Chancellor, DUVASU, Mathura has been sent to Chancellor and Governor of U.P under copy to Vice- Chancellor, RAJUVAS, Bikaner.
2. Certified copy of documents which shows that Dr. K.M. L. Pathak took individual decision in the capacity of DDG(AS) in commercialization of FMD LPBE packaging technology to M/s Arsh Biotech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him.He submitted that the CPIO is misguiding the Commission. In fact , the information skought on point no. 1 , is not available on the website .Further, there is no inquiry going on against him nor any chrge sheet has been issued to him.
The CPIO Ravi Dobriyal submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 05.11.2018. The CPIO submitted that the appellant was not a permanent employee of their organisation. He further submitted that they sent recommendations to his regular employer with recommendations regarding a disciplinary case against him alongwith some other officers.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. The CPIO in his reply dated 19.12.2018(as mentioned by the appellant in his second appeal) had stated that for point no. 1, the information is not available on the website of the DoPT and CVC and for point no. 2, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act(reply not on record but mentioned by the appellant in his second appeal).The appellant in his second appeal memo had submitted that for point no. 1, the information is not available on the website of the DoPT and CVC and that there is no investigation pending related to the information sought on point no. 2. Dr Ashok Kumar ADG vide his written submissions submitted that the Animal Science (AS) Division of ICAR received the RTI application dated 30.10.2018 of Dr. K. M. L. Pathak on 05.11.2018 vide Registration No. ICARH/R/201S/00173 2 (Annexure-1). The desired information was related to the Committee constituted for fixing the responsibility regarding MoA, the issue pertained to Vigilance Section of ICAR. It was not in the custody of AS Division. Therefore, the RTI application was transferred u/s 6 (3) by the then CPIO (AS) to another CPIO, i.e., Under Secretary (Vigilance), Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi to provide the information to the Applicant vide letter No. AS 411912018-ASR-IV dated 05.11.2018 with a copy to Dr. K. M. L. Pathak - the applicant. Thereafter, neither any appeal nor any other communication related to this case was received in Animal Science Division.
Decision:
The Commission observed that in respect of point no.1 the hyperlink of the DoPT website, where the information sought is available should be provided to the applicant. In respect of point no. 2 atleast a summary should be given to the applicant in case the full details cannot be given,with regard to the recommendations made to his parent organization ,therefore, the CPIO (Vigilance) is given a last opportunity to provide a revised and apt reply within 10 days from the date of issue of this order, under intimation to the Commission on both points as discussed during the hearing . The CPIO may note that in case of non compliance serious action may be taken against the defaulter u/s 20 of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दिन ंक/ Date 3