Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2009/00097
Name of Appellant : Sh. Rajvir Singh
Name of Respondent : National Bureau of Plant
Genetic Resources, (ICAR)
Background
Sh. Rajvir Singh, the appellant has filed an application dated 11.06.2009,
under the RTI Act, 2005 seeking the following information:- “Medical
reimbursement claims submitted by Mrs. Sanjeevan Praksh, the then F&AO,
NBPGR, New Delhi in respect of her husband, Sh. Rajan Khurana, for the period
June, 2005 to December 2007. Kindly supply Diagnosis/Prescription Slip,
Essentiality Certificate and the amount claimed and reimbursed to her along with
the notings.”
The CPIO / Sr. Administrative Officer, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
replied to the RTI application as follows:- “In view of above cited reference &
subject it is to inform that the request of the applicant is rejected under Section
8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant is seeking information which would
impede the process of investigation (Section 8(h) of the RTI Act).”
Not satisfied with the reply, the appellant filed a first appeal before the First
Appellate Authority (FAA)/Director, NVPGR. The FAA, through his letter dated
12.08.2009, decided as follows:- “Please refer to your letter dated 15.07.2009
on the subject cited above. All the documents of the case and also the provision
of the act have been examined and I agree with the PIO that the information
cannot be given under the Section 8(h) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as already
informed vide letter no. 5(1)/2006-P-III/ dated 17.06.2009, which you have
acknowledged in your letter under reference.”
Thereafter, not being satisfied with the reply received from the respondent, the
appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission alleging that cogent
reasons have not been given.
2. The matter was heard on 25.01.2010.
3. Sh. I. S. Harith, was present on behalf of applicant.
4. Smt. Sunita Sharma, Senior Admin. Officer and Sh. S.K. Sharma,
Director represented the respondent public authority.
During the hearing the appellant submits that he had not been given sufficient
grounds for denial of the information sought for by him. The respondent other
the other hand, submit that the investigation process in this matter is going on
and decision on the role of Ms. Sanjeevan Prakash is to be taken by her
disciplinary authority which is ICAR, Headquarters.
Hence, the rejection is justified under Section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005.”
Decision
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents the
Commission finds that preliminary investigation into the matter is still going on
and decision on the conduct of Ms. Sanjeevan Prakash, is yet to be taken by the
competent authority. Hence, the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of
the RTI Act. by the respondent is upheld, hence the decision of the respondent
cannot be informed with.
The matter is disposed off accordingly.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
25.01.2010
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2009/00097
Authenticated true copy:
(P.C. Purkait)
S.O. & Asst. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Sh. Rajvir Singh
Technical Offcier (T-6)
Germplasm Conservation Division
NBPGR
New Delhi-110012
2. Smt. Sunita Sharma
Sr. Admin. Officer & PIO
National Bureau of Plan Genetic Resources
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Pusa Campus
New Delhi-110012
3. Sh. S. K. Sharma
Director
Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
New Delhi-110012