Information relating to Ph.D Thesis of Jasvinder Bhatti and enquiry relating to plagiarism - Appellant: photocopy of thesis needed for comparison - Respondent: plagiarism was not established during inquiry - CIC: thesis exempt u/s 8(1)(d)
16 Nov, 2013Information relating to Ph.D Thesis of Jasvinder Bhatti and enquiry relating to plagiarism - Inspection of the documents submitted by Shri Jasvinder Bhatti in front of the Enquiry Committee as also file relating to the enquiry offered - Appellant demanded that he should be provided a photocopy of the thesis of Shri Jasvinder Bhatti as the former has copied from the thesis of the appellant and he needs it for comparison - Respondent: plagiarism was not established during inquiry and the thesis was available in their library - CIC: no larger public interest involved and the thesis becomes an exempted document u/s 8(1)(d)
Heard today, dated 25.10.2013 through video conferencing. Appellant is represented by Shri Mukund Gupta. The Public Authority is represented by Shri Sandeep Chopra, Advocate on behalf of FAA and Dr Kashmir Singh, Asstt Professor, Deptt of Biotechnology, PU Chandigarh.
FACTS
Vide RTI dt 5.4.13, appellant had sought information on 3 points relating to Ph.D Thesis of Jasvinder Bhatti and enquiry relating to plagiarism.
2 PIO PU vide letter dt 5.4.13, transferred the RTI to chairperson, Biotech, for providing a response. PIO/ chairperson, Deptt of Biotech, vide letter dt 15.4.13, provided a response to query no.1 and observed that information sought in query 2 and 3 are not available with the department. Subsequently, Dean, University Instruction, vide letter dt 16.4.13, provided a point wise response and offered inspection of the documents submitted by Shri Jasvinder Bhatti in front of the Enquiry Committee as also file relating to the enquiry.
3. An appeal was filed on 25.4.13. 4. AA vide order dt 21.6.13, directed PIO that additional information to be provided.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that though he has been provided information in respect of points no.2 and 3, certain documents relating to the enquiry report are missing and these have been mentioned in para 1(a),(b) and (c) of his appeal before the Commission. Appellant further submitted that he should be provided a photocopy of the thesis of Shri Jasvinder Bhatti as the former has copied from the thesis of the appellant. Until he gets a copy, he cannot compare and take up the matter. He also referred to the Commission’s order dt 18.1.2010 (appeal no.CIC/SG/A/2009/003039). Advocate on behalf of the University submitted that the thesis cannot be provided and in support of his arguments referred to Commissions’s order dt 17.11.11 (appeal no.CIC/DS/A/2011/001837).
6. Public Authority during the hearing has informed that plagiarism was not established during inquiry and the thesis was available in their library.
DECISION
7. In the light of the submissions made by the Public authority, there is no larger public interest involved and the thesis becomes an exempted document u/s 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. The decision of the CPIO/AA is upheld. The PIO is directed to provide missing pages of the inquiry report as referred to in para-5 above, within 10 days of the receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Jagtar Singh v. Panjab University in File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000611