Central Information Commission
B R Patel vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 4 June, 2020
के य सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NPCOI/A/2018/636516-BJ
Mr. B. R. Patel
(E-mail: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Sr. Manager (HR)
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
Central Public Information Office, Kakrapar Atomic Power Station
P.O. Anumala Via Byara Distt Tapi
Gujarat -394651
... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.06.2020
Date of Decision : 04.06.2020
Date of RTI application 13.04.2018
CPIO's response 07.05.2018
Date of the First Appeal 16.05.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.09.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding letter no. KAPS/HR/EM/19/07/2015/864 dated 01.10.2015 and letter no. KAPS/HR/EM/19/07/2016/775 dated 28.11.2016; complaint registered with reference to the above order; copy of the statement of the aforementioned letter no. taken by Vigilance section on 06.10.2015 and other issues thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 07.05.2018 provided point - wise reply to the Appellant with 04 annexing pages. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.09.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. B. R. Patel through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Sanmati Mudholkar through TC;Page 1 of 5
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no satisfactory information was provided to him on issues pertaining to the vigilance inquiry and subsequent order passed against him for recovery of medical expenditures. During the hearing, he referred to Special Civil Application filed by him before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat wherein the Respondent had clarified to withdraw the recovery order challenged by him before the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the Appellant submitted that he was entitled to disclosure of information on all points. In its reply, the Respondent while re-iterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission stated that the information regarding the complaint filed against the Appellant, statements recorded during the inquiry proceedings, etc could not be disclosed since it was held in a fiduciary capacity by the nodal agency i.e. Vigilance Section. Further if the copy of the complaint was given to the Appellant it may endanger the life or physical safety of the Complainant. Therefore, the disclosure of the copy of the Complaint was exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) and (g) of the RTI Act. Further, as per Section 13 of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2014, identity of the Complainant shall be kept secret by the Vigilance Section. On being queried by the Commission regarding the withdrawal of the recovery order against the Appellant, the Respondent replied in the affirmative but re-iterated that disclosure of complete details could be prejudicial to the vigilance proceedings.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 27.05.2020 wherein it was stated that he had filed a Special Civil Application in Gujarat High Court against the letter issued for recovery of expenditure incurred towards medical facilities withdrawn vide letter dated 01-10-2015 and letter dated 28.11.2016 and after clarification from NPCIL HQ above letter was withdrawn on 9.4.2018 by Sr. Manager (HR) KAPS NPCIL and produced in Gujarat High Court and case was disposed off on 24.04.2018. He thereafter appealed before the Commission for providing information for point no.1 and
3. The document was required by him to file a defamation case against those who willfully complained against him to use vigilance as a tool with malicious intension, mental harassment, victimization and criminal conspiracy in high court and till date NPCIL management had not taken any disciplinary action against the culprit to save those who willfully filed a bogus complaint against him. While referring to the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant submitted that he was mentally harassed and financially burdened. The Appellant therefore requested to direct to provide copy of complaint made to vigilance against him.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (CPIO and Manager- Legal) dated 26.05.2020 wherein while re-iterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA it was stated that the Appellant in his Appeal had requested for providing copy of complaint raised against him in Vigilance Section. For other points, the Appellant was satisfied with the reply of the then CPIO. However, based on the available records and the submissions received from the nodal agencies, it was stated that the information sought by the Appellant was held in a fiduciary capacity by the nodal agency i.e. Vigilance Section. Further if the copy of the complaint was given to the Appellant it may endanger the life or physical safety of the Complainant. Therefore, the disclosure of the copy of the Complaint was exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) and (g) of the RTI Act. Further, as per Section 13 of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2014, identity of the Complainant shall be kept secret by the Vigilance Section. Furthermore, in the First Appeal, it was stated that the Appellant sought the information for filing a defamation case which was a personal interest of the Appellant and there was no public interest involved in it. Therefore, the Commission could reject the request of the Appellant.
The Commission observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.Page 2 of 5
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest. 11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
In the context of the information seeker seeking his own information, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India vs. D.N. Kar in W.P. (C) 4056 of 2008 and CM Nos. 7869 and 10885 of 2008 dated 14.09.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"11. In the considered view of this Court, the above submissions are misconceived. The Respondent is seeking information only about himself being included in the Agreed List. There is no question of the Department invoking the right to privacy of the Respondent to deny him information concerning him which is held by them. The apprehension that such information may tarnish the reputation of the Respondent is also misconceived. It is also the Respondent himself who is asking the information on the material on the basis of which his name was included in the "Agreed List". Moreover, the period during which the Respondent's name was included in the "Agreed List" has long come to an end. The period during which he was kept under surveillance is over. By disclosing to the Respondent the material on the basis of which his name was included in the Agreed List, there is no danger of, the purpose of placing him under surveillance, being defeated.
12. As regard inputs that might have been given to the Department by certain persons in a fiduciary capacity, this Court finds that the CIC has, in its impugned order dated 3rd April 2008, adequately accounted for such contingency. It has been directed by the CIC that the CPIO is free Page 3 of 5 to withhold the names of the officials who might have provided critical inputs and recommended the inclusion of the Respondent's name in the Agreed List. Further, the CPIO has also been permitted by the CIC to withhold the name of the complainant, if any, in the matter.
13. This Court concurs with the view expressed by the CIC that if the Respondent feels that his name was wrongly included in the Agreed List for three years continuously and that such inclusion is indeed a stigma on his career and, therefore, he wishes to prove his innocence, he cannot be deprived of such an opportunity by withholding the material on the basis of which his name was so included. Adequate safeguards have already been provided for by the CIC in its impugned order. In the circumstances, there can be no justification for the Petitioner to deny the Respondent the information sought by him."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission instructs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and provide point wise information to the Appellant after redacting/ obliterating confidential/ sensitive information which could be detrimental to the life and physical safety of the Complainant in accordance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The order will be posted on the website of the Commission) (Bimal Julka) ( बमल जु का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के.एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 04.06.2020 Page 4 of 5 Copy to:
1. Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Nabhikiya Urja Bhavan, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai - 400 094, India.Page 5 of 5