Details of action taken regarding vigilance enquiry against an employee was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant demanded copy of report submitted by Lucknow to Ahmedabad office - PIO: new information being sought - CIC : provide the information requested for
23 Nov, 2013Details of action taken on a complaint lodged by the appellant regarding vigilance enquiry against an employee – PIO: third party information denied u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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 appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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 appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. – appellant argued that he only wants the copy of the report submitted by Lucknow to Ahmedabad office – PIO: information now sought was not part of the RTI application – CIC : provide the information requested in RTI application
ORDER
Information sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1- That DE Vigilance ATD had written to you for doing investigation about the fraudulent act of Sri. S. K. Dixit, son of Durga Pd. Dixit, on my complaint dated 06/09/2010.
2- That after reminder’s dated 13/01/2010 and 24/03/2011 by CGMT Ahmadabad to vigilance office UP East, Lucknow, the investigation is still pending without proper reasons.
3- Whether you have ever contracted The Principal of Atal Bihari Junior High School (at present), Inter College Dhikunni, District Hardoi or District Inspector of School, Hardoi for the verification of TC (said documents) as per rules.
4- Whether you have made efforts to contact with the complainant for proper verification of his complaint about fraud committed by S. K. Dixit.
5- Who will be responsible for the loss caused to the department due to delay in an enquiry on your part, with reasons for delay?
6- Whether a complaint was received, from the vigilance office o/o CGMT, Ahmadabad, along with enclosures for investigation at Hardoi District under your jurisdiction related to the forgery in age and educational document of school by Shri S. K. Dixit.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has not given the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 27/08/2013:
The appellant stated that an employee Shri S K Dixit had obtained employment with the BSNL at Ahmedabad on the basis of bogus documents and he had requested certain information regarding the matter but incomplete details have been provided to him. He alleged that the Vigilance department had initiated an enquiry against the said employee but the respondent’s at Lucknow office kept the matter pending for almost a year due to which the delinquent employee succeeded in retiring with full benefits. The appellant requested that he may be provided a copy of the enquiry conducted by the BSNL Lucknow in response to the vigilance enquiry from Ahmadabad. The CPIO Ahmadabad pointed out that the information requested by the appellant as above does not form part of his RTI application and in case he makes a fresh RTI application the information will be provided. He further stated that the CPIO Lucknow has not forwarded a copy of the appellant’s RTI application dated 06/07/2011 to him. The appellant pleaded that the matter should not be concluded so that he is able to produce further documents in support of his contention.
Interim Decision notice dated 27/08/2013: After hearing all the parties it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from them detailing their respective stands on the issue at hand, so that full facts are brought on record. Accordingly, all parties should furnish their submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to each other) by 27/09/2013. The hearing is adjourned for 03/10/2013 at 04.00 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 03/10/2013: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Baboo Ram Dixit through VC Respondent:
Mr. H R Chaudhary CPIO’s representative Lucknow through VC & Mr. A C Shah APIO Ahmedabad through VC. The APIO Ahmedabad stated that the appellant is seeking the details of action taken by the BSNL on a complaint lodged by him against Shri. S. K. Dixit, however, the information relates to a third party and is exempt under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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 appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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 appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act as held by the Commission in a similar matter vide file no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058, dated 26/06/2013. The appellant contended that the aforesaid decision quoted by the respondent holds good only if there is no larger public interest and he has documentary proof obtained from the concerned college confirming that the certificate submitted by Mr. S K Dixit is fraudulent. He further stated that all he wants is the copy of the report submitted by Lucknow to Ahmedabad in response to the vigilance enquiry instituted by them on his complaint. The CPIO’s representative, Lucknow contested stating that the information now sought is not part of the appellant’s RTI application; however, the information requested by him in his RTI application dated 06/07/2011, as available on record, will be provided.
Decision notice:
As agreed by the CPIO’s representative Lucknow, the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 06/07/2011, as available on record, should be provided to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Baboo Ram Dixit v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000998/3611