CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000857+001958/SG/15232
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000857+001958/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Yudhister Alimchandani
AG-2(FA) Misc Section
Vijay Bhavan Rawatbhata
Rajasthan site ,
Post office Anushakti ,
Kota , (Rajasthan)
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Srivastava
Public Information officer & Dy. Chief Engineer (Project)
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
12-N-14,
Vikram sarabhai Bhavan
Anushakti Nagar
Mumbai- 400094
RTI application filed on : 25/11/2010
PIO replied on : 19/01/11 (Reply after the first appeal)
First Appeal filed on : 31/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order of : NO ORDER
Second Appeal received on : 03/03/2011
Information Sought:
Q.1 Provide the copies of noting/ correspondence related to investigations by vigilance officer
,disciplinary authority , site officer and the director till the receiving of the memorandum and
allegations under memorandum no RRS /HR / Section /233/2007/285 -dated -17/8/07
Reply given by the PIO:
Copies of following documents are enclosed
1) Notings- 1N, 2N/,12N, /13N and noting initiated on 3-9-2007
2) Letter No.NPCIL/D.CELL /(20)/2006/M/354 dated 30/31.1.2006.
3) Letter No. RR Site /AGM (HR)/00000/2006/S/413 dated 21.9.2006/9.10.2006
4) Letter No. RAPS /09000/VIG.17-4/2004/S/241 dated 31.12.2004
Grounds for the first appeal:
Information was not furnished within the prescribed period of 30 days by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority
Not ordered
Ground for the Second Appeal
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 20 October 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Yudhister Alimchandani on video conference from NIC-Kota Studio;
Respondent: Mr. S. K. Srivastava, Public Information officer & Dy. Chief Engineer (Project) on video
conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
The Appellant states that he wants attested copies of all file noting and communications which led to the
issuing of charge sheet against him. The respondent has provided 13 pages consisting of the Vigilance
Report. The Appellant insist that no report of the disciplinary authority has been provided to him nor any
communications or notings of the Chief Vigilance Officer. The respondent is directed to check if any of
these are available and send an attested copy to the appellant. If none of these are available the respondent
will inform the Appellant accordingly.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 15 November 2011.
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
20 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (NS)