Central Information Commission
Kishor Bhaurao Gorkhe vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 18 October, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2023/642773
Shri Kishor Bhaurao Gorkhe ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.10.2024
Date of Decision : 16.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.04.2023
PIO replied on : 23.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 04.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : 28.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 05.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.04.2023seeking information on the following points:-
"Originally, I am an employee of DOT and absorbed in BSNL. Consequent on acceptance of my option by competent authority for voluntary retirement under BSNL voluntary Retirement Scheme-2019, I was validly and lawfully allowed to retire from the service w.e.f. afternoon of 31.01.2020 with clear vigilance angle as no departmental or judicial proceeding was pending against me at the time of my valid retirement. On 21/04/2023 1 received a Memorandum ADMIN/04025/2500/Rule-61/98607340 Dated at Chandrapur, the 18/03/2023, proposing therein to hold an enquiry under Rule 36 read with Rule 61 of BSNL CDA Rules 2006. Along with, memorandum I have been supplied with a copy of letter no. OFROT/RAIGAD/212/2018 having put a date as 10 DEC 2018 by rubber stamp. The letter is also seal put on it by rubber stamp (HR &Admn) BSNL MH Telecom Circle, RECD and also a handwritten date as 14.12.87. The copy of the letter is also having a list wherein my name is appearing at serial no. 458, appears not have been signed by the sender of the letter. Therefore, under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, kindly provide me as under.
1) A copy of letter no. OFROT/RAIGAD/212/2018 having put a date as 10 DEC 2018 by rubber stamp received by the BSNL after the date on which date, the purported letter was created.Page 1 of 3
2) A copy of a list, and more particularly the page wherein my name is appearing at serial no. 458 which was duly signed by the sender of the letter to which this list is enclosed."
The CPIO, DGM (HR & Admin) vide letter dated 23.05.2023replied as under:-
"1. A copy of letter no. OFROT/RAIGAD/212/2018 dated 10.12.2008 is already provided along with Memorandum dated 18.03.2023
2. A copy of letter no. OFROT/RAIGAD/212/2018 dated 10.12.2008 and page appearing name 'KISHOR BHAURAO GORKHE' at serial no 458 is already provided along with Memorandum dated 18.03.2023"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2023. The FAA, GM, Chandrapur, BSNLvide order dated 28.06.2023held as under:-
"2. The appellant filed this appeal on the ground that information sought by him is not provided by CPIO and copy of list is not provided by CPIO, further copy of page containing his name which was provided along with the memorandum does not contain sign of the sender. As per above observation, information asked by the appellant at point no-01 is Hypothetical. However CPIO provided the information held by him as per available office record and therefore, I find no cause to intervene in it. Also, the CPIO provided the extract of the list where name of appellant is appearing at Sr. No 458. The list contains name of 1097 employees against whom complaint of false/fake caste certificate is reported and disciplinary proceeding is pending and not attains to its finality. After careful study of the case and documents on record, I find that it is not appropriate at this time to disclose the complete list and prevented under section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act- 2005. The page having sender signature i.e. last page of the list is provided and enclosed herewith"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Nitin Penshey - CPIO/DGM(Admin), BSNL, HQ, Chandrapur and Mr. P.M. Bansole, AGM, BSNL, Bhandara participated in the hearing through video- conference.
The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by theRespondent.
Respondent present during hearing stated that information held on record hadbeen duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, theCommission is of the considered opinion that information available on recordwith the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has beenduly Page 2 of 3 furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. TheAppellant seeks redressal of his grievance which does not fall within the scope ofthe RTI Act. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in termsof provisions of the RTI Act has already been provided by the Respondent, nofurther intervention is warranted.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल साम रया) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)