CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/900879
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : Shri Arun Bhave
Respondent : Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 10/10/2011
ORDER
1. Shri Arun Bhave, the appellant has filed this appeal dated 12.2.2011 before
the Commission against the decision of FAA, Bharat Heavy Electircals Ltd.
(BHEL) New Delhi for providing unsatisfactory reply to his RTI-request
dated 26.7.2010. The matter came up for hearing on 10.10.2011. The
appellant was absent, whereas the respondents were represented by Shri S.
Satish Rao, Ms. Shreysi Singh, Executive (Law) and Ms. Shilpi Sikka,
Executive (Law).
2. The appellant filed an RTI-application dated 26.7.2010 seeking information
on five queries relating to rate of increment to Supervisor Trainee,
departmental candidate (Artisan-I & II) appointed as Supervisor Trainee
1
against open advertisement and promotion policy from Supervisors to
Assistant Engineer. The CPIO vide letter No. AA/CPIO/10 dated 30.8.2010
informed the on Point Nos. 1 to 4 that the he had sought interpretation and
not information and on Point No. 5 the appellant was provided copy of
promotion policy of Supervisors to Assistant Engineer.
3. Aggrieved by the reply of CPIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal dated
30.9.2010 before FAA. The FAA, (Appellate Committee) vide order No.
AA/CL/RTI dated 26.11.2010 upheld the reply of CPIO with the observation
that the information sought by the appellant on Point No. 1 to 4 were
hypothetical queries and therefore does not fall within the scope of Section
2(f) of the RTI Act. On Point No. 5 the CPIO was directed to send a copy of
promotion policy to the appellant, if the same has not been sent already.
4. The Commission has carefully perused through the material placed on
record and has heard the Respondent during the hearing. The Commission is
of the view that the Appellant has sought specific information through the 5
(five) points raised in his RTI Application. The Appellant through Point
Nos. 2 to 4 seeks to know the frequency as well as the quantum of respective
increments which a departmental candidate (Artisan-I, Nov ’08 or Artisan-II,
May ’08 as the case maybe), who is selected for the post of Supervisors
2
Trainee or Junior Supervisors Trainee, as the case maybe, is eligible to
receive or supposed to receive and the corresponding rules / regulations
which govern such a procedure.
5. Similarly, vide Point No.1 of his RTI Application; the Appellant seeks to
know the frequency as well as the quantum of respective increments which a
Fresh candidate, who is selected for the post of Supervisors Trainee, is
eligible to receive and the corresponding rules / regulations governing such a
procedure.
6. The Commission does not find any reason why such information cannot be
provided to the Appellant by the CPIO of the Respondent authority. The
Appellant has sought such information by being specific and particularly to-
the-point in his various queries. There is no doubt that such information in
the nature of Rules / Regulations governing procedure of increments is
ought to be held and maintained by the Respondent authority. Therefore, the
Commission directs the concerned CPIO of the Respondent authority to
provide clear point-wise information to the Appellant on Point Nos. 1 to 4 of
his RTI Application free of cost within 10 days of receipt of this Order.
7. With respect to Point No.5 of the RTI Application, it is observed that the
Appellant had sought the present promotion policy of Supervisors / Assistant
3
Engineer working in BHEL. The Appellate Committee, RTI of the
Respondent authority vide its Order dated 26/11/2010 has already directed
the CPIO to send a copy of the said promotion policy to the Appellant and
the Commission completely concurs with the said decision. If the copy of
the said promotion policy has not been supplied to the Appellant already,
then the CPIO of the Respondent authority is hereby directed to provide the
copy of the said promotion policy free of cost to the Appellant within 10
days of receipt of this Order.
8. Before concluding, the Commission would like to make a brief remark about
the practice adopted and followed by the Respondent authority to give effect
to the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. As per page 4 of the RTI Charter of the Respondent authority (as available
on its official website –
https://www.bhel.com/rit2005/pdf/ContactListRITOfficers%2030.09.pdf), a
committee comprising of 5 (five) officers has been designated as the
Appellate Authority as required under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act. The
following two Notes mentioned on the above webpage read as follows:
“Note-1: Senior most official shall be deemed as Chairman of the
Appellate Committee.4
Note-2: The appeal to the committee should be addressed to the Member
Secretary, at following address:BHEL, Hose, Siri Fort, New Delhi 110049
Tel no. 011-66337000Æ (PP) Fax no 011 26493021″10. Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act reads as follows:
“19. Appeal – (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within
the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of
section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may
within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of
such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to
the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry
of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal
in time.”
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
A careful reading of the emphasized portion of Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act
(supra) clearly shows that the first appellate authority is to comprise of such
officer who is senior in rank to the CPIO or the SPIO, as the case maybe.
Furthermore, the Proviso makes it clearer that such officer may entertain a
5
first appeal even after the expiry of statutory period of thirty days, if ‘he or
she’ is satisfied that a case is made out for granting condonation of delay.
11. Therefore, technically, the RTI Act envisages a situation where the officer
designated as the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has to be senior in rank to
the CPIO, the officer must be singular in nature and has to be a natural
person (since such officer has to either be a ‘he’ or ‘she’). Section 19 (1) of
the RTI Act does not accommodate a legal entity or a juristic entity to be
designated as a FAA under the RTI Act. The raison d’être behind such
conclusion is that the efficiency in discharging its overall functions by any
Public authority has to be balanced with the timeliness in providing
information to a citizen under Section 6 of the RTI Act. Not adhering to
statutory timelines under the RTI Act bears serious consequences and may
attract Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
12. Now, if a group of two or more officers is designated as “the FAA” of any
Public Authority, such as by constituting an appellate committee comprising
of 5 (five) officers as in the present case, then the overall output of the said
Public Authority is likely to suffer and consequently, the efficiency in
discharging its regular essential functions may be affected.
6
13. To ensure that excessive manpower is not allocated to hearing first appeals
under the RTI Act, the Legislature has purposely envisaged the appointment
a single officer, senior in rank to the CPIO of the concerned Public
Authority, to hear and dispose of first appeals arising under the RTI Act.
Such is therefore the correct and rightful approach as contained in Section
19 (1) of the RTI Act and must be strictly followed by all the Public
Authorities.
14. However, in the instant case, the procedure and practice followed by the
BHEL (i.e., the Respondent authority) has been in place for quite sometime
and the ‘Appellate Committee, RTI’ as constituted by the BHEL has been
readily and timely discharging its duties as the FAA under the RTI Act. In
any case, the senior most official of the Committee is the deemed Chairman
of the Committee which implies that the technicalities of Section 19 (1) are
nearly satisfied. Therefore, in the given circumstances of the case at hand,
the Commission does not wish to interfere with the said practice and BHEL
may continue to follow the same as long as it is in consonance with the
overall object & purpose of the RTI Act, which is to promote transparency
and accountability in the working of BHEL.
15. With the above observations, the present appeal is allowed.
7
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Second Day of November, 2011
Authenticated True Copy
(DC Singh)
Deputy Registrar
Name & Address of Parties:
Sh. Arun Bhave,
Chhota Royganj, Near Germany Hospital,
Beside Khare/Shukla aata Chakki, Sipri Bazar,
Jhansi
The PIO/CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
BHEL House, Corporate Office, Siri Fort,
New Delhi
The First Appellate Authority,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
BHEL House, Corporate Office, Siri Fort,
New Delhi
8