O R D E R

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 30.07.2019 seeking information on the following four points:

“Under RTI act plz provide information related to Disciplinary action recommended by Vigilance department of Crly zone against Sanjay Gupta CCI TMBY for producing Fake ST caste certificate

1) Please provide copy of letter of Vigilance department addressed to Disciplinary authority recommending Disciplinary action against Sanjay Gupta.

2) Plz provide copy of Draft Chargesheet.

3) Please provide copy of Charge memorandum issued by Disciplinary authority.

4) Please provide copy of Investigation report of Vigilance branch handed over to Disciplinary authority.”

Shri Narendar Panwar, Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager & PIO (Comml) vide letter dated 21.08.2019, denied information to the Appellant u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.09.2019, informed as under:

“Copy of reply given by Sr DCM & PIO vide letter BB/C/302/RTI/Aug- 19/869/Comml dated 21.08.2019 is enclosed. Thus, no further direction is warranted in the matter.”

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.

The Appellant stated that he has been denied information while quoting Girish Ramchandra Deshpande’s case. Upon queried by the Commission as to whether he is the complainant in the averred case against Shri Sanjay Gupta, he replied in affirmative.

The Respondent submitted that the information sought pertains to personal information of a third party and accordingly the same has been denied to the Appellant relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande v/s. CIC & others. He further submitted that as per the availability of records, the Appellant is not the complainant in the averred disciplinary case against Shri Sanjay Gupta.

Since the Appellant is contesting that he is the complainant in the averred disciplinary case against Shri Sanjay Gupta and on the contrary, the Respondent is refuting the said averment of the Appellant, the Commission advised the Appellant to upload a copy of the complaint, in order to ascertain as to who is the complainant in the said case.

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Gaurav Jha, CPIO and Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager vide letter dated 09.08.2021, wherein he has informed the Commission as under:

Decision Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Appellant has till date not uploaded a copy of the complaint, which gives enough opportunity to infer that he is not the complainant in the said disciplinary case against Shri Sanjay Gupta. The Commission further observes that since the Appellant has sought information pertaining to a third party and that the factum of larger public interest also has not been established, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondent has denied information to the Appellant appropriately.

In view of the above, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.

Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव)

Information Commissioner (सचू ना आय(cid:7334)ु )

(cid:7408)दनांक / Date: 03.09.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ(cid:7079)मािण