Central Information Commission
K S S Murthy vs Centre For Dna Fingerprinting And ... on 13 February, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/639893 + 643066
In the matter of
K S S Murthy
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)
(An autonomous institute of the Department of Biotechnology,
Ministry of Science & Technology)
Inner Ring Road, Uppal, Hyderabad - 500 039
...Respondent
File Nos. : 639893 643066 RTI application filed on : 08/06/2022 07/06/202 CPIO replied on : 04/07/2022 04/07/2022 First appeal filed on : Not on Record Not on Record First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Not on Record Complaint dated : 21/07/2022 05/08/2022 Date of Hearing : 13/02/2023 Date of Decision : 13/02/2023 The following were present: Complainant: Present over VC
Respondent: Dr K Anupama, Staff Scientist/Link CPIO-Present over VC Information Sought in File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/639893:
The complainant has sought the following information regarding over-payment of terminal benefits and unauthorized appointment of Mr. V A Kasipathi after his superannuation:
1. Whether CDFD had obtained any special approval from DBT, DoPT or DoE to allow Mr. V A Kasipathi to retire on Superannuation in the ad hoc position of Technical Asst. without reverting back to his original designation of Junior Managerial Assistant and payment of terminal benefits on the pay drawn in the ad hoc position? If so, intimate the level of approval and provide the copy of approval accorded by the concerned authority.1
2. If no, special approval had been obtained from the said authorities, then give details of the authority under which he was permitted to proceed on retirement in the ad hoc position and for payment of terminal benefits on the Pay drawn in the ad hoc position and intimate the details with amount of terminal benefits paid to him.
3. What are the professional qualifications of Mr. V A Kasipathi based on which he was appointed as Consultant after his retirement? Provide copies of notings, OM etc. in connection with his appointment as Consultant immediately after his superannuation.
4. And other related information.
Information Sought in File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/643066:
The complainant has sought the following information:
- Provide a copy of the letter vide which his request for payment of Category-A salary minimum time scale of Pay and DA thereon was forwarded to the Legal Advisor. Also, provide a copy of the Legal Advisor's letter vide which his decision or advice was received.
Grounds for filing Complaints:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing: The complainant was aggrieved with the denial of information under Section- 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the CPIO in File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/639893. In another complaint, File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/ 643066, he stated that the documents given by the CPIO in response to his RTI application were incomplete as it did not contain the first two pages of letter dated 20.11.2021 of Adv Gadi Praveen Kumar.
The Link CPIO submitted that suitable replies duly conforming to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 were given in both the cases to the complainant, therefore, the complaints were devoid of merits. On being queried on the aspect of the missing 2 pages of letter dated 20.11.2021, he replied that due to restrictions on the uploading capacity on the RTI portal, the pages in question could not be uploaded. However, she handed over the hard copy of the same (pages 1 &2) to the complainant during the hearing.2
Observations:
At the outset, both the parties were informed during the hearing that the instant complaints were clubbed together for final disposal by the Commission.
On a perusal of the case records, the Commission noted that the information requested for in File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/639893 was personal information of Mr. V A Kasipathi. The disclosure of such information is expressly barred as per Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, therefore the denial of information was as per law. In File No. CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/ 643066, the Commission noted that an appropriate reply as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 was given and the sought for documents were provided to the complainant. No deficiency was found in the replies of the CPIO in either of the cases. The Link CPIO also supplied the copy of the first two pages of letter dated 20.11.2021 of Adv Gadi Praveen Kumar to the complainant during the hearing.
Apropos the contents of the complaint, the Commission observed that the instant matters were filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section-18. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing observations, no adverse action under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted. The instant complaints are disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3