Central Information Commission
Mr.Bhanudas Tukaram More vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 20 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000300/17823
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000300
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Bhanudas Tukaram More,
Qtr No: D3-2/6 Door No. 24
Gautaminagar, Aswapuram,
Khammam, A.P -507116.
Respondent : Mr. V. K. M. Parthiban
Public Information Officer & Dy. General Manager Department of Atomic Energy, Heavy Water Plant Manuguru, Aswapuram Khammam, A.P-507116 RTI application filed on : 21/09/2011 PIO replied : 04/10/2011 First appeal filed on : 01/11/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 19/11/2011 Second Appeal received on : 24/01/2012 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. What actions were taken against the persons those Grading of A3 in the APAR was reviewed and the who assessed reviewed and accepted the A3 status intimated to you vide letter No.HWBIRI4 grading of my APAR without providing any (1) 120111548, dated 21.06.2011 by Chief specific remarks and material facts/substance Executive, KWB, Mumbai. against it?
2. If reply of point No.1 is Nil, why not taken up? Not applicable
3. If reply of point No.1 is Nil, when and what Not applicable actions would be taken against them?
4. What appropriate measures The information sought is not specific and not taken to end such recurrences? falling under the provisions & 2 (f) & (j) & RTI Act, 2005
5. Please provide me information in the following The information available will be provided format regarding the officers who have been subject to payment & Rs.38/- towards copying working In Electrical Process section and had charges of 19 pages document. undergone training electrical discipline since January. 2003.
6. What measures were taken up in the reported The information sought is not specific and not period for effective development of the falling under the provisions of 2 (f & (j) of RTI undersigned as I belong to SC category? Act, 2005
7. What actions were taken against Mr. S.Sundaresan, The information sought is not failing under the Associate Director (Operation) who had provisions of 2(f) (j) of RTI Act 2005. The maintained A3 grading of my APAR without any information available in the public domain will Page 1 of 3 substantiation? only be furnished under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
8. If reply & point No.7 is nil, why not taken up? The information sought is not When and what actions would be taken against falling under the provisions of 2(f) (j) of RTI Act him? 2005.
9. What actions were taken against Mr.R.Prakasti, The information sought is not falling under the Chief Executive, and Heavy Water Board for provisions of 2(f) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. maintaining A3 grading of my APAR without any substantiation?
10 If reply of point No.9 is nil, why not taken up? The information sought is not falling under the . When and what actions would be taken against provisions of 2(f) U) of RTI Act. 2005.
him?
11 What actions were initiated by Dr.Srikwnar The reply against your representation dated . Baneijee, Secretary to Govt. of India, DAE against10.01.2011 was already addressed through a letter my representation dated 10.01.2011? a No.HWB,R14(1)201 1/548, dated 21.06.2011, by Chief Executive, HWB, Mumbai.
12 If the reply of point No.11 is nil, when and what The information sought is not falling under the . actions would be initiated against it? provisions of 2(f) and (j) of RTI Ad; 2005 Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The First Appellate Authority upheld the reply of the PIO and reiterated that information sought was hypothetical in nature. Further as per Section 2 (f) & (j) the information available in public domain will be furnished.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Bhanudas Tukaram More on video conference from NIC-Khammam Studio; Respondent: Mr. V. K. M. Parthiban, Public Information Officer & Dy. General Manager; Mr. N. Venkateshwarlu, Administrative Officer on video conference from NIC-Khammam Studio;
The PIO has given most of the information but he now clarifies the following: 1- Query-1: The Respondent states that no action has been taken against any officers.
Most of queries of the Appellant do not seek information which would be available in the records. However, the appellant wants to inspect the relevant records on 11 April 2012 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 11 April 2012 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 11 April 2012 from 10.30Am onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 3 of 3