CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:

“This is with respect to the replies from CBI Reference letter CBI Mumbai dated 9th July 2020 (Page no 1 in the attached copy) And subsequent email with audio evidences emailed to rohit.ya*****@cbi.gov.in from my email id vsku*****@rcfltd.com on 13-10-2020, 15-10-2020, 20-10-2020 and 26-10-2020.

Also with reference to the remarks by CBI (Remarks in Page no 2 in the attached copy). After completion of scrutiny of this letter dated 9th July 2020, the complaint was forwarded to CVO, RCF vide the office letter No CE/026/2020/A/0251/C-259 dated 15-12-2020 So this complaint was marked to CVO, RCF Ltd for investigation by CBI on 15-12-2020.

Kindly issue me a copy / copies of the competent authority signed detailed reports as per RTI act for the above complaints / emails / evidences / RTI details etc. marked to CVO, RCF Ltd. Kindly issue me competent authorities signed

(i) Copies of the examination / investigation findings detailed reports, final enquiry report submitted against my complaints along with all annexures, approvals, enquiry proceedings, all related / connected papers / documents / evidences etc, all communications / correspondences / data / information, reports, proceedings etc.

(ii) Copies of the action taken reports on examination / investigation findings detailed reports along with all annexures, approvals, enquiry proceedings, all related / connected papers / documents / evidences etc with all signatures.

(iii) Competent authority signed approved copies of sworn statements of the persons against whom the complaints have been made accepting or rejecting the charges (Based on all my complaints including the earlier ones).”

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 26.05.2023 directed the CPIO to provide the reply/information within 15 days.

3. Aggrieved with the non-compliance of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.06.2023.

4. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Madhukar Pacharne, General Manager & CPIO along with Moinu Pandey, Law Officer.

5. The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired information till date.

6. The Respondent relied upon his written submission dated 03.102.2024 wherein it was informed that the reply to the instant RTI Application was provided on 09.08.2023. As for the initial deemed refusal to provide the information as well as the failure to comply with the FAA’s order, the Respondent remained clueless and failed to tender any submission.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that considering the vague nature of the RTI queries, the factual reply provided by the CPIO on 09.08.2023 informing the unavailability of the information cannot be faulted. A copy of the said reply shall be resent to the Appellant within 2 days of the receipt of this order via speed/registered post.

However, the Commission takes grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then CPIO as well as the failure of the CPIO to comply with the FAA’s order, both of which are a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.

Now, therefore the CPIO is directed to send a proper written explanation to the Commission along with supporting documents, if any, for the above counts of omission and in doing so, if the onus of the omission lies with the then CPIO, a copy of this order shall be duly served to the then CPIO by the present CPIO at their present place of posting under intimation to the Commission.

The written explanation of the then CPIO shall reach the Commission through the present CPIO and the present CPIO will ensure receipt of their respective written explanation by the Commission within 30 days of the receipt of this order, failing which, show cause proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act may be initiated in the matter.

8. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Surulikumar v. Rashtriya Chemical and Fertilizers Limited, Second Appeal No. CIC/RCFLT/A/2023/629663; Date of Decision: 05.11.2024