CIC: There is merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that her husband was adjudicating the matters as PIO; The conflict of interest is evident here - CIC: Respondents to designate some other PIO pertaining to RTI applications of the appellant

ORDER

Case No. CIC/YA/A/2014/003453/MP

1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 17.10.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), PAO(IRLA), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi seeking information in respect of Shri S.K. Meena, IBES, Dy. Director, IRLA No. 14873 such as certified copies of details of family of Shri S.K. Meena; nomination for DCRG with name of nominee(s) with their relationship with Shri Meena; copy of nomination for benefits under Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme; copy of nomination for GPF; copies and details of LTC availed along with family members; details of long term and short term loans taken; expenditure incurred on education of his son Dhimant and education allowance claimed during 2008 to 2014, salary slips and rent receipts for claiming HRA etc. through six points.

1.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.11.2014 provided photocopies of salary slips for the months of September, 2014 to November, 2014 to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 18.11.2014. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2014 directed the CPIO to provide official information to the appellant and for personal information, the CPIO was directed to provide information after following the procedure of Section 11 of the RTI Act.

1.3. Aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 24.12.2014 on the grounds of not providing the information sought for by her.

Case No. CIC/YA/A/2014/003454/MP

2. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 17.10.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Prasar Bharati, AIR, Bikaner seeking information in respect of Shri S.K. Meena, IBES, Dy. Director, IRLA No. 14873 such as certified copies of details of family of Shri S.K. Meena; nomination for DCRG with name of nominee(s) with their relationship with Shri Meena; copy of nomination for benefits under Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme; copy of nomination for GPF; copies and details of LTC availed along with family members; traveling allowance on transfer, claims made on transportation charges of personal effects; amount taken as advance and details of truck number in which his goods and luggage was taken to Bikaner from Delhi etc.

2.1. Aggrieved with non receipt of information from the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority on 16.11.2014. The FAA, Prasar Bharati, AIR, Mumbai vide letter dated 25.11.2014 directed the CPIO to provide the information on all the points.

2.2. Aggrieved with non-receipt of information from the respondents, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission on 24.12.2014.

Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000307/MP

3. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 17.10.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Prasar Bharati, AIR, New Delhi seeking information in respect of Shri S.K. Meena, IBES, Dy. Director, IRLA No. 14873 such as certified copies of details of family of Shri S.K. Meena; nomination for DCRG with name of nominee(s) with their relationship with Shri Meena; copy of nomination for benefits under Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme; copy of nomination for GPF; copy of address proof regarding property No,. B-10, Phase II, Shyam Vihar, Najafgarh, Delhi from the date to which he showed the said property as his residential address and whether the property was owned by him; copy of representations and reasons given for cancellation of transfer order issued by DG AIR vide order No. 59/2006-III dated 21.6.2006; copy of representation given by Shri Meena regarding cancellation of transfer order dated 26.05.2009; details of his CGHS card for medical facilities while he was posted at O/O C.E (NZ), AIR, New Delhi; certified of TA bill for transfer submitted by Shri Meena when transferred from New Delhi to Bikaner, details of immovable and movable properties; details of LTC etc. through ten points..

3.1. The CPIO vide letters dated 18.11.2014, 3.12.2014 and 17.12.2014 sent point-wise reply/information to the appellant. In the meantime, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority on 18.11.2014. The FAA, Prasar Bharati, AIR & Doordarshan, New Delhi vide letter dated 8.01.2015 directed the all CPIOs concerned to furnish the required information within the stipulated time limit to the applicant. The FAA also provided an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of relevant records.

3.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents on the grounds of providing incomplete information, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 27.01.2015.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001557

4. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 20.04.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Prasar Bharati, AIR, New Delhi seeking information in respect of Shri S.K. Meena, IBES, Dy. Director, IRLA No. 14873 such as certified copies of details of family of Shri S.K. Meena; nomination for DCRG with name of nominee(s) with their relationship with Shri Meena; copy of nomination for benefits under Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme; copy of nomination for GPF; details of paternity leave availed during the period October, 2014 to May, 2015; copy of representations and reasons given for his retention at AIR, Bikaner till 30.06.2015 against the DG AIR order of his transfer from AIR Bikaner to AIR, Jabalpur; When Shri Meena was posted as Installation Officer, AIR, Jamnagar House, New Delhi; details of medical facilities availed from 2003 to September, 2009; certified copies of TA bill for transfer submitted by Shri Meena when transferred from AIR, New Delhi to AIR Bikaner in September, 2009; details of immovable and movable properties for the period 2012 to 2015; details of expenditure incurred on lawyer’s fees and other expenses from 2008 onwards; through seven points.

4.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.06.2015 denied information being third party information, after following the procedure of Section 11 of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority on 01.06.2015. The FAA, Prasar Bharati, AIR & Doordarshan, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.06.2015 held that the all the CPIOs concerned had been already requested vide order dated 27.04.2015 to furnish the requisite information to the appellant. No further information could be provided as similar information was repeatedly sought.

4.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 13.07.2015 on the grounds that none of the CPIOs had complied with through the directions of the FAA.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001560

5. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 20.04.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), PAO (IRLA), Ministry of I&B, New Delhi seeking information in respect of Shri S.K. Meena, IBES, Dy. Director, IRLA No. 14873 such as certified copies of details of family of Shri S.K. Meena whether her name and her son Dhimant’s name were there among the names of family members; nomination for DCRG with name of nominee(s) with their relationship with Shri Meena; copy of nomination for benefits under Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme; copy of nomination for GPF; details of paternity leaves availed during the period October, 2014 to May, 2015; GPF details; education allowance claimed in the years 2008 to 2014; certified copies of salary slips for the months of March, 2015 to May, 2015 etc. through five points.

5.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 5.5.2015 intimated the appellant that she had filed appeals before the CIC against the order of the FAA. So information could not be provided until any suitable direction was received from the CIC. In the meantime, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 01.06.2015. The FAA vide order dated 4.6.2015 directed the CPIO to provide information as per available records. As regards personal information, the CPIO was directed to follow the procedure of Section 11 of the RTI Act. In compliance with the directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 26.06.2015 informed the appellant with reference to points (1 a to d) and 2 that the relevant records were not maintained by PAO and advised the appellant to seek the information from the Head of Office; on point 3 relating to GPF details, the appellant was advised that the CPIO had sought the consent of Shri S.K. Meena, whose reply was still awaited; and provided information on points 4 and 5.

5.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 13.07.2015 on the grounds of having been provided incomplete information.

6. As the information as sought for by the appellant in her five RTI applications was similar, all the five appeals were heard simultaneously. The appellant stated that the respondents had denied information on most of the points treating it as third party information. She had asked information about herself as she is the legal wife of Shri Meena and information cannot be denied on the ground of privacy and the respondents had to disclose personal information especially in matters where cases related to maintenance were pending adjudication before the Court. The CPIO in response to RTI applications intimated that Shri Meena had informed that the marriage with the applicant had been dissolved on 27.2.2011 whereas no such divorce had taken place as yet and she is bonafide and legally wedded wife of Shri S.K. Meena and she had a son of 15 years old, presently studying in 12th class at Bikaner. She is presently living with her son in the staff quarter allotted to Shri Meena. Shri Meena has been demanding dowry and has been ill-treating her and her son physically, socially, emotionally for dowry. Shri Meena has illegally married a widow lady named Anita Meena by ‘Nata Pratha’ and they are living as husband and wife and had a child from that lady. She also stated that Shri S.K. Meena has been designated as CPIO, AIR, Bikaner and had been replying to her RTI applications in respect of the queries asked for against him, which is violative of natural justice.

7. The respondents P&AO (IRLA), Ministry of I&B stated that the appellant had sought various information like nominations of GPF, DCRG and CGEGIS, details of salary slips, GPF advances/ withdrawal as well as balance in GPF account, children education allowance claimed, paternity leave taken by Shri Meena. The details of nomination, paternity leave, family details etc. were part of service book and O/O P&AO did not maintain the service book of Shri S.K. Meena. As per Service Rule- 198, it is the responsibility of head of office, hence the appellant was intimated to seek such information from the head of office of Shri Meena i.e. All India Radio, Bikaner. The GPF details of Shri Meena pertained to third party, accordingly the CPIO followed the procedure of Section11 of the RTI Act and Shri Meena had refused to disclose his personal information to the appellant. Moreover, all the information had been provided to the appellant through Family Court, Saket vide letter dated 10.07.2015. The respondents O/O Additional DG (NZ), AIR & Doordarshan, New Delhi stated that whatever information was available had been furnished to the appellant. Apart from this the other CPIOs were also requested to furnish the information pertaining to them. As regards CGHS facility available by Shri Meena during 2003 to September, 2009, they stated that Shri Meena had not availed CGHS facility.

8. Having considered the submissions of parties, the Commission holds that there is merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that her husband Shri S.K. Meena, was adjudicating the matters as CPIO. The conflict of interest is evident here. The CPIO who is responsible for collecting and collating information sought for is a party to the case. He can hardly be expected to follow a non partisan approach in the matter. The Commission therefore, directs the respondents to designate some other CPIO at AIR, Bikaner in place of Shri S.K. Meena with immediate effect pertaining to the RTI applications of the appellant. The respective CPIOs are directed to pass point-wise speaking orders and provide information/certified copies of the documents as sought for by the appellant in respect of her all the five RTI applications within ten days of receipt of this order. The appellant is at liberty to approach the Commission in non-compliance petition, in case the CPIOs did not comply with the directions of the Commission. These appeals are disposed of.

(Manjuna Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Smt. Shivangi Meena v. Prasar Bharati in Appeal Nos. CIC/YA/A/2014/003453/MP, CIC/YA/A/2014/003454/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000307/MP, CIC/MP/A/2015/001557, CIC/MP/A/2015/001560