Central Information Commission
Ashwani Kumar Srivastav vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 31 March, 2023
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/PBSEC/A/2022/124948
Ashwani Kumar Srivastav ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. Director General (Engg.),
Prasar Bharti, DG Doordarshan,
RTI Cell, Akashwani Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/03/2023
Date of Decision : 28/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 31/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/03/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 31/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.12.2021 seeking the following information:1
"References:
(a) Tour order no- BPC/DDK/OB deployment 12021-22 dt. 22/11/21
(b) Revised tour orders no- BDL/DDK/OB.DSNG/dep- 2021
(c) My email to (DE studio) Shri P.K Dated 22/11/21.
1(a) Kindly provide the details of grounds that without my consent depute me 0.8 deployment at shajapur?
b) Kindly provide the file noting of this deployment?
Q-2/a. Kindly provide the details of ground to depute me while other options were available?
Q-2b. Kindly provide the details of ground to not consider earlier?
3(a). Kindly provide the details of ground to not consider name as those who have done less coverages as compare to me (less then 4).
(b) If any one given written request for exemption kindly provide the relevant documents.
(4) As per details of information -1-b. How many persons how given that they cannot go for coverage due to family problem. Kindly provide file noting and Xerox of - request for exemption.
5(a). Kindly provide the details of ground to removal my name form order dated 23.11.2021 for sajapur (MP).
(b). Kindly provide the xorex of refusal for this coverage?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 31.12.2021 stating as under:
The Appellant paid the additional fees on 11.01.2022. Subsequently, the CPIO replied on 31.01.2022 as under:2
"With: reference to your RTI offline application dated 06.12.2021 bearing no. PRBHA/R/P/21/00184 dated 29.12.2021 the reply dated 31.12.2021 has already been sent to you. Subsequently, it is informed that As per the decision of Hon'ble CIC in the case of Dr. K.C. Vijayakumaran Nair Vs Department of Post "
The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information". Hence, information denied as per above decision."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2022. FAA's order, dated 31.03.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: A K Jain, DDG & CPIO, DDK, Bhopal present through video conference.
The Appellant submitted on the lines of the written submissions dated 27.03.2023 stating as under:
"1. With reference to my email dated 25.09.2020 (enclosed) it is self-
explanatory that irregularities in OB deployments were persisting for a long time only because the Co-ordination in-charge was not making and deputing as per the rules (roster).
2. No action has been taken by the Head of Office to remove the irregularities mentioned in my email dated 25/09/2020, also the Head Office has not replied to the email dated-25/09/20 which was in public interest.
3. Then, I have filed RTI application on 06/12/2021, to find out the basis of out of turn deployments and for relaxation of the basis granted to some employees.
4. As mentioned in point-3 of the grounds of appeal dated 12/03/2022, I have submitted Postal Order No.- 19-G-990317 in the form of 10 pages of information of Rs. 20. As instructed by Sh. Mukesh Garhwal CPIO, to provide me 3 specific information but he has returned all documents without mentioning IPO (Postal Order No-19-G-990317).
5. Sh. Mukesh Garhwal CPIO has mentioned in his letter No.- F.No.- 904/51/APIO/RTI/2021-22/294/457 dated 31.01.2022. Judgment of Hon'ble CIC in the case of Dr. KC Vijaya Kumaran Nair Vs. Department of Posts (enclosed, please refer).
6. I respect the mentioned order of Hon'ble CIC, in my RTI, requesting you that if the Head of Office is not resolving the long pending irregularities in OB deployments, which pertains to OB deployments irregularities and financial irregularities. So, I request you to please exempt my RTI application from the mention of Hon'ble CIC Judgment (Dr. KC Vijaya Kumaran Nair Vs Department of Posts).
7. The required information is most important to me as it is my duty as an employee of the same organization to inform the grievance cell of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and DG Doordarshan to resolve the anomalies in the interest of service."
The CPIO submitted that the information was not provided to the Appellant as per the averred order of CIC that stated that "The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information". The CPIO further agreed to abide by the order of the Commission, if any, in the matter.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the in a strict sense, the information sought for by the Appellant does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought for clarifications and justifications based on speculative queries. 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--4
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's 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 washeld 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, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) 5 And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Nonetheless, since the CPIO has caused unwarranted confusion in the matter by first offering to provide relevant documents and later denied to provide the same, in view of the Appellant's case explained during the hearing, to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the documents that were being offered to be provided vide their original reply of 31.12.2021. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7