Central Information Commission
K Balu vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 13 October, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BHELD/C/2023/609428
K BALU ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Secretary BHEL BAP Ranipet
EPF Trust BHEL BAO
Ranipet, vellore-632406
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/10/2023
Date of Decision : 03/10/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 03/03/2022, 02/01/2023
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint dated : 19/02/2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"The applicant's email ID is [email protected] 1 Query No 1:
From this email Id, the application had forwarded a representation to RPFC- Vellore (email Id [email protected] ) on 30/06/2021. The applicant is yet to receive any reply for this representation.
a) Please provide me a copy of the reply if it has already been forwarded to the petitioner.
b) If no reply was given, details of action were taken on this representation by the RPFC-Vellore.
Query No 2:
From this email Id, the application had forwarded a representation to RPFC- Vellore (email Id [email protected] ) on 06/01/2022. The applicant is yet to receive any reply for this representation.
a) Please provide me a copy of the reply if it has already been forwarded to the petitioner.
b) If no reply was given, details of action were taken on this representation by the RPFC-Vellore.
Query No 3:
From this email Id, the application had forwarded a representation to the APFC Mr. Manoj Prabu RPFO--Tiruchirappalli (email Id [email protected] ) on 27/12/2021. The applicant is yet to receive any reply for this representation.
a) Please provide me a copy of the reply if it has already been forwarded to the petitioner.
b) If no reply was given, details of action taken on this representation by Mr.Manoj babu, the APFC Query No 4:
It has been stated in the letter received by the applicant bearing reference no TB/VLR/Exempted/17199/2021 dated 07/09/2021 that the allegations that transfer of the fund was illegal are not correct. Hence the transfers of PF Accumulation between BHEL Ranipet EPF Trust and BHEL-Tiruchi EPF Trust are 2 legal. It is not possible to transfer PF accumulation without proper documentation. Hence following documents are requested. If these documents are not available with EPFO, the CPIO is requested to transfer the part of this application to the relevant public authorities under the provisions of the RTI Act.
a) Please provide me a copy of the relevant documents showing that the transfer of PF accumulation of the applicant from BHEL/Ranipet EPF Trust to BHEL/Tiruchi EPF Trust on 11/09/2009 is legal.
b) Please provide me a copy of the relevant documents showing that the transfer of PF accumulation of the applicant from BHEL/Tiruchi EPF Trust to BHEL/Ranipet EPF Trust on 26/12/2009 is legal.
c) Please provide me a copy of the relevant documents showing that the transfer of PF accumulation of the applicant from BHEL/Ranipet EPF Trust to BHEL/Tiruchi EPF Trust on 09/02/2010 is legal."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the complainant on 03.03.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1:
No mail received from applicant on 30.06.2021.
Point No. 2:
Reply already sent on 01.03.2022. Copy enclosed.
Point No. 3:
As the requested information is not available in this office, the application is already transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to Regional Office, Tiruchirapalli for furnishing information.
Point No. 4:
As the requested information is not available in this office, the application is already transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to BHEL EPF Trust, Ranipet and BHEL EPF Trust, Trichy."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the complainant on 02.01.2023 stating as under:
3"With reference to the above subject, the following point was transferred to BHEL BAP Ranipet PF Trust, and we have replied to EPFO, Vellore on 07.03.2022 (mail copy attached as Annexure-A). Further we noticed that reply should have made to applicant too. Hence the reply is reproduced below.
Point no. 4:
a) Document attached as Annexure-B
b) Not relevant BHEL BAP Ranipet PF TRust
c) Document attached as Annexure-C."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the following grounds -
"...a. The information was not furnished by a designated CPIO. b. The information furnished is not appropriate. Based on the CPIO's information, the transferring of PF accumulation on 11/09/2009 was done based on the document dated 28/12/2009.
c. As the requested information is not available, the CPIO furnished misleading information to cover up the illegality in the transfer of PF accumulation of the complainant..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Balaji T.S., CPIO, BHEL Ranipet along with Rakesh Sanf, Secretary (BAP Unit) PF Trust present through video-conference.
The Complainant through a written submission dated 01.10.2023 recused himself from participating in the hearing session citing the following arguments -
"The appellant humbly submits that the CIC Ms. Saroj Punhani is biased towards the public authority. Hence, there is no use in attending the hearing scheduled on 03/10/2023.
Justification for my averment:
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/608157 4 RTI Filed on : BHELD/R/E/20/00283 dated 15/12/2020 CPIO/BHEL/Ranipet replied on 29/12/2020, First Appeal filed on 03/01/2021 First Appeal disposed on 10/02/2021 Second Appeal filed on 06/03/2021 Written submission filed by the CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchi on 28/03/2022 Additional written submission filed by the CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli on 28/03/2022 CIC Ordered on 30/03/2022 File NO: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/613684 RTI Filed on : BHELD/R/E/20/00283/1 dated 15/12/2020 CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli replied on 07/01/2021 First Appeal filed on 18/02/2021 First Appeal disposed on 19/03/2021 Second Appeal filed on 01/04/2021 CIC Ordered on 21/04/2022 In file No: the CPIO/BHEL/Ranipet and CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli were arrayed as the respondents to favour the public authority.
In file No: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/613684, the fact that the second appeal was filed on 21/04/2021 was suppressed to favour the public authority.
The CPIO/BHEL/Ranipet vide his additional written statement had nominated the CPIO of BHEL/Tiruchirappalli to represent. Whereas in the order of CIC in file no: CIC/SH/C/2015/000399, the CIC had barred the transfer of RTI Application u/s 6(3) within the same public authority. In the second appeal filed in CIC/BHELD/A/2021/608157, the complainant mentioned this CIC order. This CIC had not considered this point to favour the public authority.
The CPIO had invoked the exemption u/s 8(1)(a) from disclosure of requested information.
Further, the exemption claim of the CPIO was admitted by the first appellate authority. In the written submission filed by the CPIO on 28/03/2022 just two days earlier than the hearing date of 30/03/2022, the reiterated his exemption claim u/s 8(1)(a). In spite no suggestion was put forth by the CPIO regarding the applicability of section 8(1)(e), the CIC voluntarily considered the applicability of section 8(1)(e) to favour the public authority.5
The complainant submits that if the CIC is admitting the applicability of section 8(1)(e) during the hearing, then proper time should be given to the complainant for submission of the written statement. Unfortunately, CIC had not allowed such an opportunity to favour the public authority.
The complainant submits in the Supreme Court Order cited in CIC order in file no: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/608157 that the concept of fiduciary was explained. There is no fiduciary relationship exists in the information requested from the public authority. The CIC had inappropriately cited the Supreme Court order to favour the public authority.
File NO: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/607267 RTI Filed on : BHELD/R/E/20/00241 dated 09/10/2020 filed on 14/10/2020- 16 information items Query 7 and 16 were transferred to the CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirapalli vide BHELD/R/E/20/00241/1 CP CPIO/BHEL/Corporate Office replied on 18/11/2020 CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli replied on 20/11/2020 First Appeal against the order of the CPIO/BHEL/Corporate Office and CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli filed on 15/12/2020 First Appeal disposed on 25/01/2021 The second Appeal with a limited prayer to put the recruitment information in the public domain was filed on 01/03/2021 CIC Ordered on 30/03/2022 The complainant wants to know which rule permits to array of two or more CPIOs for the second appeal against one CPIO's order. The lack of understanding of the RTI Act may be the reason for such confusion.
The CIC had not disposed of this second appeal on merits to favour the public authority. The CIC decision without considering the second appeal prayer ridicules the information-seeking procedure under the RTI Act.
It is unfortunate to state that the CIC decision reveals the fact that the CPIO's decision, first appeal and First Appeal order were not been perused by the CIC to favour the public authority.
The CPIO had furnished incorrect information on putting recruitment information in the public domain. The candidates who applied for recruitment can only view their application status.6
Therefore, no recruitment information is available in the public domain. The CIC had taken the incorrect information furnished by the CPIO without any verification to favour the public authority thereby weakening the purpose of the RTI Act to contain corruption.
For the reasons stated above the CIC is biased towards the public authority thereby weakening the purpose of the RTI Act to contain corruption. In this circumstance attending the hearing is not warranted."
Rakesh Sanf, Secretary (BAP Unit) PF Trust invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 28.09.2023 wherein he inter alia stated as under -
"...the appellant was an employee of BHEL and was also member of the BHEL Bap Ranipet Epf Trust when he was in service.
(3) It is submitted that BHEL Bap Ranipet Epf Trust is an independent establishment and its trustees are elected as per the provisions of the Trust and EPF Act. As such there is no separate CPIO or Appellate Authority for the BHEL BAP Ranipet EPF Trust. In any event, members of the trust are otherwise entitled to collect any details pertaining to self-details.
(4) In as much as there is no CPIO or First Appellate Authority for the BHEL BAP RANIPET EPF TRUST, there was no direct RTI application submitted before the BHEL BAP RANIPET EPF TRUST. However, complaint has been lodged as though Secretary of the BHEL BAP RANIPET EPF TRUST is the CPIO.
Hence, on this ground itself, Hon'ble Commission is requested to kindly dismiss the complaint.
(5) The present complaint is made by Shri.K Balu in respect of a details furnished in response to RTI Application dated 07.02.2022, which was made by Shri. K Balu before the CPIO of Regional PF Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Vellore.
(6) It is our humble submission that EPFO is the public authority.
(7) Vide letter no. TB VLR RTI No. 247 PID 2021 4126 dated 03.03.2022,(Annexure 1) CPIO of EPFO, Regional PF Commissioner directed the Secretary, BHEL BAP Ranipet EPF Trust to furnish details pertaining to 7 Query No.4(a) and Query No.(c). The said letter dated 03.03.2022 has also contained the details of First Appellate Authority of EPFO.
(8) In order to comply with the directions issued by the Regional P Commissioner-11/CPIO of EPFO, on behalf of BHEL BAP Ranipet EPF Trust details were furnished vide email dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure 2) enclosing the documents sent earlier to the Regional PF Commissioner II/CPIO.
(9) It appears that the CPIO of EPFO has not furnished the details to the appellant Shri. K Balu.
(10) Subsequently, BHEL BAP Ranipet EPF Trust has issued a separate letter dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure-3) reproducing the details that were emailed to CPIO of EPFO on 07.03.2022 Thus, although BHEL BAP Ranipet EPF Trust is not a separate public authority having its own CPIO and Appellate Authority, acting upon the directions given by the Regional Pf Commissioner-II/CPIO of EPFO details for queries were already furnished.
(12) In the circumstances, it is false to allege that appropriate information has not been furnished. It can be seen from the records that details furnished by the Secretary are nothing but copies of records held in the files of BHEL BAP Ranipet EPF Trust.
(13) It is our humble submission that if at all the complainant was not satisfied with the details furnished by the Secretary, BHEL BAP Ranipet EPF Trust, he could have made an appeal to the appellate authority mentioned in the reply ref. no. TB VLR RTI No. 247 PID 2021 4126 dated 03.03.2022, CPIO of EPFO, Regional PF Commissioner."
Decision At the outset, the Commission rejects the contentions of the Complainant raised through his latest written submissions as none of the points are applicable to the facts of the instant matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the grounds raised by the Complainant as para a of his Complaint 8 are adequately addressed/answered by the Rakesh Sanf, Secretary through his written submissions as quoted above.
Further, with respect to grounds of the Complaint mentioned as para b & c , it is noteworthy that the Complainant appears to have challenged the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO which is purely a matter of grievance and cannot be resolved under the mandate of RTI Act. Here, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another 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:
"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) 9 Now, since it is a complaint filed under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, the Commission does not find any merits to initiate any action against the CPIO for want of any malafide intent on their part. In this regard, attention of the parties is invited towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Nonetheless, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of the latest written submission of Rakesh Sanf free of charge with the Complainant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 10