Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00222-SM dated 04.02.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 24.03.2009
Appellant : Shri P.K. Rout
Respondent : Indian Rare Earth Limited, Department of Atomic Energy
The Appellant is not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri K. Suresh, Senior Manager (Legal), is present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had come before this Commission earlier in the appeal number
CIC/WB/A/2007/00130 dated 31 January 2007. The CIC had disposed of his appeal in his order
dated 6 December 2007 and had remanded the case to the first Appellate Authority to dispose of
the appeal. Consequently, the first Appellate Authority decided the appeal in his order dated 4
January 2008. It is against that order that he has now come before us in second appeal once
again.
3. The appeal was conducted through video conferencing. However, the Appellant was not
present in the NIC studio at Kochi. We carefully examined the contents of his appeal. In this
appeal, he has once again raised the question of delayed reply by the CPIO and has prayed for
appropriate action against him. We observe that the CIC had, in his order, dealt with this issue
and had not found any substance in the allegation of the Appellant. In the remaining grounds
listed in his appeal, the Appellant has drawn our attention to the discrepancy in some of the
replies given by the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority in response to some items. The
Respondent explained that there was no irregularity in the reply given by the CPIO in the matter
of issuing the offer of appointment order to the Sl No. 2 of the panel first instead of Sl No. 1. He
explained that the CPIO concerned was also the head of the HR at the relevant time and the
details provided by him while answering this particular query was by way of clarification only
based on his knowledge about the case. Obviously, he argued, there was no intention on the part
of the CPIO to provide wrong or misleading information. Similarly, he explained that the
discrepancies alleged by the Appellant in some of the other replies did not really exist and that
the Appellant had misinterpreted the information given to him.
4. The Respondent, however, agreed that the CPIO made a mistake on the part of the
CIC/WB/C/2008/00222-SM
CPIO when he sent wrong copies of applications of some of the candidates in pursuance to the
orders of the first Appellate Authority. Inadvertently, he forwarded copies of the July applications
of two of the candidates instead of sending copies of applications filed in November. The
Respondent offered to dispatch the copies of the correct applications to the Appellant now, if so
ordered. We direct him to forward copies of the correct applications of the said candidates to the
Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
5. We note that the Appellant has tried to do a lot of nitpicking to find fault with the
information provided to him. We are satisfied that the first Appellate Authority and the CPIO,
between them, have provided all the requisite information as desired by the Appellant.
6. With the above direction to the CPIO, we dispose off this appeal.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and
payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/WB/C/2008/00222-SM