Central Information Commission
Dhairyapalsinh Narpatsinh vs Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidhyut Nigam Ltd. ... on 29 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26717355
Complaint No. CIC/YA/C/2015/900404
CIC/YA/C/2015/000408
Complainant: Dhairyapal Singh
No. 20, Brindavan, Bhavini Township,
Anupuram, Kanchipuram-603127,
Tamil Nadu, Kanchipuram, 603127
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Sr. Manager (HR) Bharatiya Nabhikya Vidyut Nigam
Ltd. Kalpakkam-603102, Kanchipuram Distt. Tamil
Nadu
Date of Hearing: 22.06.2016
Dated of Decision: 22.06.2016
ORDER
CIC/YA/C/2015/900404 Facts:
1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 07.04.2015 seeking information related to entire career progression path of Mrs. K. Malathi from her joining in DAE (1989) till date and education qualification etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 15.05.2015 by providing the information. The complainant filed first appeal on 15.06.2015 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The complainant filed complaint on 08.07.2015 with the Commission with a request to provide the information.
CIC/YA/C/2015/000408 Page 1 of 5
3. The complainant filed RTI application dated 15.05.2015 seeking information regarding the recruitment of Technical Officer (health physics) at serial no. 3 against Advt No. 01/2012/HR of BHAVINI ( Bhartiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam limited)etc.
4. The CPIO responded on 20.06.2015 by providing the information. The complainant filed first appeal on 24.06.2015 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The complainant filed complaint on 08.07.2015 with the Commission with a request to provide the information.
Hearing:
5. The complainant and the respondent Smt. K. Malathi (CPIO) and First Appellate Authority participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
6. The complainant stated that the both the cases related to recruitment irregularities and can be heard together.
7. The complainant stated that he has been provided incorrect information. The complainant stated that the sought for information (copy of educational & professional certificates, degrees) has not been provided to him. The complainant stated that the respondents are deliberately suppressing the information. The complainant stated that the recruitment/promotion of these two officers has been made against the rules. The complainant stated that he has submitted written brief to the Commission and elaborated the Corruption and irregularity that have been committed in the recruitment, which may be taken on record.
8. The complainant stated that Mrs. Vidhya Sivasalianathan, was a regular stenographer in BHAVINI (2005 to 2012) and was later directly recruited to the Group -A level post of Technical Officer -C (TO/C)- Health Physics in the year 2012 in violation of the rules of recruitment. The complainant stated that illegal age relaxation was given. The question paper of M.Sc. Physics level was set and examined by a production engineer, interview subject expert was not from Physics discipline field but an Electrical Engineer, the mandatory qualification for similar post in NPCL is full time M.Sc. Degree, while she was holding a correspondence degree. The Page 2 of 5 complainant stated that to suppress the fact of mandatory qualification, the CPIO had given false information that both the selected candidates possesed correspondence degree. But in reality another selected candidate namely Ms. T. Sudhasini possesses regular M.Sc. and M.Phil degree. The complainant stated that the mandatory degree verification /authentication of certificates was not carried out for Mrs. Vidhya Sivasailanathan.
9. The complainant stated that he had complained about a willfull excess payment which was and suppressed by 40 senior officials during their official foreign tour to meeting/workshop/program offered by WANO-Tokyo Centre. The complainant stated that he had given all the relevant papers to the then CMD for recovery of the same and for taking disciplinary action against them corrupt officers. The complainant stated that Rs. 50 lac were recovered from the officials but disciplinary action had not been taken against them. The complainant stated that for exposing this fraud, he has been threatened.
10. The complainant stated that he has been suspended for filing RTI applications and filing police complaint through magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The complainant stated that senior officers had made adverse entry/remarks in his 2014-15 ACR/APAR regarding filing of RTI applications viz ( "he made several RTI queries on BHAVINI which was not in good sprit. Also made letters/representation which affected smooth functioning"). The complainant stated that he has fundamental right to use the RTI Act and enforcing his rights. The complainant stated that he has been harassed since the day of exposing the corruption of senior officers. The complainant stated that he is apprehending threat to his life from the respondent. The complainant requested that he should be provided protection. The respondent stated that in the larger public interest and to promote transparency in the system, the sought for information should be provided to him.
11. The respondent stated that in these two cases, except the educational certificate, the information, as available with them, has been provided to the complainant. The respondent has denied all the allegations as made by the complainant. The respondent stated that the correct information was provided to the appellant. The respondent stated that so far as his charge Page 3 of 5 memo/grounds of suspension is concerned, this is not related to the RTI matter. The respondent stated that the document/character verification has been carried out by screening Committee as per rules. The respondent stated that the complainant had lodged complaint with the police and a case in Court and made frivolous charges against officers by violating the service conduct rules. The respondent stated that all top executive has been summoned by the Police. The respondent stated that suspension was not on the grounds of filing RTI application.
Discussion/observations:
12. The complaint may be treated as appeal as the complainant is seeking information.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in decision dated 06-08-2013 in the matter of Civil Appeal no. 6362 of 2013 Union Public Service Commission versus Gourhari Kamila has held that the education/experience certificates of other candidates are personal information of the third party (candidates) and cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to other person unless larger public interest involved. The Commission further observed that the appellant is not an affected candidate of the said recruitment. The Commission observed that except the educational/experience certificates, full information has been provided to the appellant. Hence, all information, as sought, has been provided
14. The Commission further observed that the allegation in para 8 with regard to providing incorrect/false information to the appellant, should be inquired into by the first appellate authority and a factual report may be sent to the Commission within 15 days.
15. The Commission observed that the appellant has stated that following adverse entry/remarks were entered in his the ACR as he had filed several RTI applications, "he made several RTI queries on BHAVINI which was not in good sprit. Also made letters/representation which affected smooth functioning". The appellant further stated that the filing of several RTI applications is one of the stated reasons of his suspension in the charges sheet issued to him. In this context, the Commission observed that as per a Page 4 of 5 catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Right to Information is a fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. Hence the Commission observed that the respondent shall commit an illegal act if it abridges the right of the appellant to file RTI, thru adverse entries in ACR or making it a ground of suspension. The respondent is, therefore, directed to give a factual report in the matter to the Commission within 15 days.
16. The appellant has referred to a threat to his life. He is advised to file a FIR in the matter in the concerned police station.
Decision:
17. The respondent is directed to take action as stated in para14 and 15 and send compliance report to the Commission within 15 days of receipt this order.
18. Matter is adjourned. The Dy. Registrar is directed to relist the matter after 15 days of this order and a notice be sent to (only) respondent for hearing in the matter.
Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar Page 5 of 5