Central Information Commission
Ramnath Dubey vs Ministry Of Heavy Industry & Public ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MHIPE/A/2022/116383
Ramnath Dubey ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.,
RTI Cell, Naini, Allahabad-211010,
Uttar Pradesh .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/08/2022
Date of Decision : 16/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20/10/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 15/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31/03/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2021 seeking the following information:1
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Amit Kumar Pandey, In-charge (HR) & CPIO present through audio/video- conference.
The Appellant narrated at length the factual background/ grievance regarding his VRS in 2002 and deduction of an amount from his gratuity funds. He further stated that although he has received a reply from the CPIO in response to his earlier RTI Application, however he is aggrieved by the fact that even the amount has not been received by him till date.2
To a query from the Commission regarding status of the reply, the CPIO submitted that no reply has been furnished to the Appellant in response to instant RTI Application. He further explained that BPCL Company has since closed its operations in compliance with the Cabinet decision in December, 2020; and as a sequel to it, all the employees have already been released on VRS in 2021. He added that only 10 employees have been retained and assigned with task of closure and ancillary activities of the Company. He emphasized that even otherwise, the conduct of the Appellant is noteworthy that he slept over this matter for more than 20 years and suddenly woke up to ask for his unclaimed gratuity amount; yet in a bonafide gesture, the information regarding release of his gratuity amount of Rs. 1,52,760.81/- has already been intimated to the Appellant telephonically time and again since 2008.
The Appellant while interjecting to rebut the submissions of the CPIO contested that he has tried to resolve the matter personally through repeated visits and follow ups with the Respondent organization, but all in vain. Therefore, at the end, he has resorted the channel of RTI to get the desired information at the belated stage, but the fact remains that he has not received the relevant information till date.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the fact that no reply has been provided to the Appellant by the concerned then CPIO, BPCL with in the stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act and also no written explanation for such delay has been tendered by the present CPIO in the form of written submission prior to the hearing. Such casual conduct of the CPIO causes unwarranted obstructions to the Appellant's right to information and viewed adversely by the bench.
Now, therefore, the CPIO, BPCL is hereby directed to send his written explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for not giving timely reply coupled with relevant information to the Appellant. If any other person is responsible for such delay then the present CPIO is directed to file his/her written submission as well, along with supporting documents. The said written explanation of the CPIO along with supporting documents, if any, should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.3
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the detailed submissions of the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore the alleged discrepancy in the release of his gratuity amount post VRS for which he has sought intervention of the Commission.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
4"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, considering the prayer of the Appellant and in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to provide a point wise categorical reply along with relevant information in response to RTI Application. The said reply should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within a week from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission. Lastly, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance regarding gratuity amount through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) 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 / 5