Central Information Commission
Kamal Dhingra vs Csir Hqrs.,New Delhi on 6 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/CSIRD/C/2023/618399
CIC/CSIRD/C/2023/632341
Shri Kamal Dhingra ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, CSIR Hqrs., New Delhi ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.06.2024
Date of Decision :
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Both cases arise out of the same RTI application and is between the same
parties, hence the cases are clubbed together for convenience of
adjudication
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal/
on appeal Complainant
received on
618399 23.02.2023 22.03.2023 27.03.2023 05.04.2023 11.04.2023
632341 23.02.2023 -- 27.03.2023 05.04.2023 04.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/CSIRD/C/2023/618399 (2) CIC/CSIRD/C/2023/632341 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. As per previous RTI reply, there is huge expenditure on foreign tours running into many crores by Dr. S.K. Brahmachari. Please provide copies of notings of approval of all (domestic + foreign tours) in r/o Dr. S.K. Brahmachari, Sh. K.S. Vaidheeswaran, former JS(A), Dr. Shekhar Mande, undertaken during their tenure at CSIR Hqrs. Provide copies of TA/DA bills claim made by all of them in r/o above tours. Full details/Copies of all bills paid (Govt. expenditure done) for all tours in r/o the above officerswhich include entertainment allowance, TA DA or any other amount paid from the Page 1 head from Govt. account clearly mentioning full details relating to head, total Govt. expenditure per officer per tour-through digital mode. Also provide details/information in r/o Dr. Geetha Vani, Head HRDG in r/o above.
2. Names of officers who have been working on a particular seat for more than 5 years.
3. Give full details of laptops issued to employees of CSIR Hqrs from the period 2017 to 2020. Copy of criteria/policy/rules followed in allotment of laptops to the employees of CSIR Hqrs. Copy of approved criteria/policy in purchase of laptops i.e. deciding the technical specifications according to work etc. since heavy Govt. expenditure is incurred in purchase of laptop.
4. During the tenure of Shri K. Jayakumar, former JS(A), an FIR was filed for a financial fraud detected in CSIR Hqrs (unauthorized debit from CSIR account/fraud cheque issued. Provide copy of FIR, all details related to financial loss caused to CSIR/copies of report of Fact finding committee constituted for this purpose/action taken by CSIR on the detection of fraud, names of persons who were found responsible for this fraud/details of action taken on these officers, status of case as on today/details of money/loss recovered by CSIR, give full details.
5. Since fraud was detected, provide details of award of contract (full financial) details/copies of contract/agreement given to NIIT for conduct of exam related to recruitment of ASO in CSIR during the tenure of Sh. K. Jayakumar, former JS(A). Full Govt. expenditure incurred for the conduct of this exam. Provide copies of all receipts of Govt. expenditure incurred through digital mode. Provide details of all officers chargesheeted in this case (provide copies of all chargesheets issued/all memos). Copies of all administrative/legal notings related to this case. It is probably understood that the contract of recruitment in Govt. service was awarded to a private firm and that too without tender. It is also probably understood that this exam was cancelled firstly due to leakage of question paper, provide full details/all copies of complaints received/give information of all facts. Provide all copies of reports/findings of the fact finding committee.
6. Details of Consultants appointed during the entire tenure of Dr. S.K. Brahmachari, the then DGCSIR and Dr. Shekhar Mande clearly mentioning name of the consultant, appointed on date, emoluments paid per month, tenure of the consultant, copies of appointment orders of all consultants, all copies of notings regarding the appointment of consultants during the tenure of the above officers.
7. In r/o CSIR Hqrs provide case details/details of action taken on those employees who have been found guilty of renting Govt. accommodation from 2007 onwards. Provide names/full details alongwith action taken including providing all copies.
8. Total Govt. expenditure on ERP (enterprise resource planning) done by CSIR i.e. from start of the process uptill today. Give full details of companies that were given/allotted the responsibility to make the software for ERP, Govt. funds paid/being paid to all of them as on today. Provide full details/copies of bills paid of the Govt. expenditure on ERP through digital mode. Give information relating to implementation of ERP in respect of CSIR Hqrs and CSIR Cx. i.e. the processes/work which is done on ERP and inform whether hard copies are taken after initiating a process/work request on ERP, from the Govt. servant.
Page 2
9. Legal case details related to Dr. Archana Sharma, Head, TKDL fought by CSIR. Provide copy of OA filed by CSIR and copy of OA filed by Dr. Archana Sharma against CSIR. Copies of all notings related to the legal case of Dr. Archana Sharma, Head, TKDL through digital mode. ETC"
The CPIO, CSIR Hqrs.,New Delhi vide letter dated 22.03.2023 replied as under, gathering information from the relevant custodians of information:-
Point Information
No.
9. As per record available in Legal Section Dr. Archana Sharma have filed three OA's viz OA No. 3268/2016, 2218/2017 and 03/2018 is enclosed (583 pages in CD).
Point No. Information
1 Available copies of tour program in respect of Shri KR
Vaidheeswaran, former JS(A) is enclosed (09 pages in CD).
Point No. Information
8 & 23 Being the record very bulky and scattered. Therefore, you are
advised to inspect the concerned file/documents/information on any working day by giving 07 days prior notice to this office.
Point No. Information
6 The information sought by the applicant requires compilation
which will results in disproportionate diversion of resources, thus information sought cannot be provided. However, if the applicant cites any particular case or any reference, if available, will be provided.
7 Nil
ISTAD
Point No. Information
1 Being the record very bulky and scattered manner. Therefore, you
are advised to inspect the concerned file on any working day by giving 07 days prior notice to this office.
Page 3
IFD/Audit Section
Point No. Information
1,4,8, 20 & 23 Please specified, without specification impossible to locate the
documents which the applicant is looking for without any specific reference.
Since rest of the queries related to CSIR-HRDG, New Delhi, CSIR-NISTADS, New Delhi, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, CSIR-NEERI, Nagpur and CSIR-AcSIR New Delhi, the matter was transferred to the actual custodian of information under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, under intimation to the Appellant.
Another reply dated 27.03.2023[29] was sent by the CSIR, New Delhi answering queries number 11, 12,16 (ii),(iv),(v) and (vii).
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information in respect of file No. CIC/CSIRD/C/2023/632341, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 05.04.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO and also annexed the same.
Still not satisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO vide letter dated 28.05.2024 The RTI application of Sh Dhingra was also transferred to other CSIR Labs/Instts where it was seen that the information was not available in CSIR HQ but appeared that it might be available with other Labs/Institutes. Therefore, best possible efforts were made by various divisions/Sections of CSIR HQ to provide maximum information to the applicant. The Respondent has stated that multiple complaints have been previously filed by Sh. Dhingra and a previous decision dated 15.06.2023 has also been cited by the Respondent which was passed by the Commission while deciding a batch of 15 complaints filed by the same Applicant, with the following observation:
QUOTE: -"Moreover, as discussed during the hearing the complainant is an aggrieved employee and is harassing the public authority by filing a series of RTI applications where he seeks all and sundry information which are not only voluminous but also cover very large period of time. The written submissions dated 12.06.2023 of the CPIO enumerated a detailed description of the motive of the employee cum applicant in filing so many RTI applications. Keeping in view the same, the Commission finds these complaints unjustifiable and clearly a misuse of the RTI Act.
Page 4 A written submission dated 15.05.2024 has been received from the Complainant reiterating the facts as already stated in the Complaint and the same has been taken on record.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Smt. Vandana D Singh - US/CPIO, CSIR, Hq was present during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective queries, wherein the Respondent stated that best possible efforts were made to furnish information available on record with the various divisions/Sections of CSIR, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
On perusal of records of the case and upon hearing averments of the Respondent present for hearing, it is noted that information available on record with the different divisions/Sections of CSIR has been duly furnished to the Complainant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant was unable to specify which information had not been provided to him, despite being granted adequate opportunity. In the given circumstances, it is important to note that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, hence the only question which can be adjudicated is whether there was any deliberate or willful concealment of information in these two cases. From the deliberation between parties and the documents submitted by both parties, it is evident that the reply sent by the Respondent contains adequate and appropriate information and is well within the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
It is relevant to note the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. .. the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that since information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and there Page 5 is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in these two cases, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in these two cases.
The cases are disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)