Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Dr.M M Mittal vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 13 October, 2011
                             Club Building (Near Post Office)
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                          Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001299/SG/15183
                                                                  Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001299/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                                    :        Mr. Debashish Dutta
                                                      Scientific officer-D
                                                      Van de Graff Bldg
                                                      LEHIPA project, physics group
                                                      BAARC, Trombay

Respondent                                      :     Mr. Govardhan Rao
                                                      PIO & Head (Personnel Division)
                                                      Bhabha Atomic Research
                                                      Central complex, 3rd floor
                                                      BAARC, Trombay - Mumbai

RTI application filed on                    :       11-02-2011
PIO replied on                              :       09-03-2011
First Appeal filed on                       :       11-03-2011
First Appellate Authority order of          :       28-03-2011
Second Appeal received on                   :       27-04-2011

Sl.                        Information sought                                 Reply of PIO
1. Detailed information requested as regards date of opening, purpose Date of opening Psychiatric
    and continuation there of psychiatric file with OPD, Psychiatric at file-May 10,2010
    BAARC hospital against the CHSS No.9/15661A(5164)

Grounds for the First Appeal:
The CPIO did not give complete and true information and CPIO did not provide information.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appellate authority found PIO reply satisfactory.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
PIO had not given complete and true information.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Debashish Dutta on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Govardhan Rao, PIO & Head (Personnel Division) on video conference from NIC-

Mumbai Studio;

The PIO has provided the information about the date of opening of the file. The Appellant states
that he wants the reasons for continuing the said file. The respondent states that there are no reasons on
the records for continuing the said file. He also states that it’s a file of medical records and there are no
reasons on record for continuing a medical file of an employee.

The Appeal is disposed.

Information available on the records has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
13 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AG)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.136 seconds.