Information relating to break up of class IV staff was denied by PIO u/s 2(f) - FAA: inspect the relevant records - CIC: statements of PIO & FAA are contradictory; provide point-wise information; show cause notice to PIO for attempt to obstruct disclosure

Information relating to break up of class IV staff was denied by PIO u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; - FAA: inspect the relevant records - CIC: statements of PIO & FAA are contradictory and reflect the intention of the PIO to avoid disclosure of information; directed to provide point-wise information; show cause notice issued to the PIO for attempting to obstruct disclosure

ORDER

Facts:

1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 08 November 2012 before the CPIO, Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh; seeking information relating to break up of the class IV staff (Ward Staff) with each officer and each branch of the GMCH32 through multiple points.

2. Vide CPIO Order dated 07 December 2012, CPIO denied the requisite information on the ground that the requisite information is not covered under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005 which provides the definition of information. However, applicant may get the requisite documents after inspecting the record on any working day.

3. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the Appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority dated 11 December 2012.

4. Vide FAA Order dated 31 Decemebr 2012, the FAA held that the class IV employees are contractual employees and their record is maintained by the contractor and that no contractual employee is with the specific officer/ offical permanently. In case he is keen to verify the described information he can inspect the record from the Establishment BranchI. he is free to see the record pertaining to contractual employees available with Establishment BranchI.

5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission.

7. Matter was heard today. Both parties, as above, appeared in person and made submissions.

Decision Notice

8. Both parties have been heard. Commission observes that the CPIO has not applied his mind while disposing of the RTI application and in no way it can be construed that the information sought by the appellant is not covered under the definition of information given under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act. Simultaneously, CPIO has also stated that the appellant can inspect the requisite documents holding the information. Both these statements are contradictory and reflect the intention of the CPIO to avoid providing the requested information to the appellant. At the hearing also, Commission observed the reluctance of the CPIO in imparting the information which is held on record and is squarely disclosable as per the provisions of the Act. Now, CPIO is directed to provide pointwise information to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of order. Through this order, ‘Show Cause Notice’ is issued to the CPIO for attempting to obstruct the disclosure of the requested information. Date for personal hearing will be provided to him through separate notice.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Harmeet Singh v. Govt. Medical College & Hospital in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000155