RTI requires full disclosure of complaint status including closure; incomplete responses mandate revised replies.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) The details action taken by Hon’ble Chairman of CVC till date and its report, file noting, orders & memos against one letter from Sri Susanta Kundu, 52/1 Abinash Banerjee Lane PO-Sautragachi PS- Chatterjeehat Howrah, Pin- 711104 in regards to M/S R B TRADING & CO, 101/24, B. T. Road, Kolltata- 700090 dated 11-03-2023 being “Sub:- Specific complaint against illegal reconstitution allowed by Kolkata Div & WB State Office based on fake/bogus and illegal documents” addressed to Chairman of CVC & 3 Others.

(ii) The details action taken by Chief Vigilance Officer of IOCL till date and its FINDINGS, report, file notings, orders & memos against one letter of Sri Susanta Kundu, 52/1 Abinash Banerjee Lane PO- Santragachi PS- Chatterjech at Howrah, Pin- 711104 in regards to M/S RB TRADING & CO, 101/2A, B. T. Road, Kolkata-700090 dated 11-03-2023 being “Sub:- Specific complaint against illegal reconstitution allowed by Kolkata Div & WB State Office based on fake/bogus and illegal documents” addressed to Chairman of CVC & 3 Others.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

i. Your complaint dated 11.03.2023 was registered as Complaint No. 9741/2023 on Complaint Management System (CMS) Portal of the Central Vigilance Commission. The complaint after due examination was sent to CVO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited for necessary action on 22.03.2023. The CVO is expected to examine the complaint and decide further action. An acknowledgement was also sent to you on 22.03.2023.

ii. Your RTI application is being transferred to CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited for appropriate action in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

3. Subsequently, the CPIO, IOCL, replied vide letter dated 17.08.2023 replied that the CVO, IOCL, submitted detailed report on investigation carried out in the above complaint to CVC on 30.05.2023. The case was being examined by CVC and further action will be taken upon receipt of advice from CVC. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 31.10.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Suneja, CVC, and Ms. Piyali, CPIO, IOCL), attended the hearing in-person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that concerned CPIO of IOCL had given an interim reply (17.08.2023) that further action would be taken on receipt of advice from CVC. The representatives of CVC also stated that the appellant had filed two complaints (one of them having been filed under PIDPI) which had been duly closed. Since, the substance of the issues in both the complaints was identical, they had taken a decision to club both the matters and the closure report had been provided to the appellant through the public grievance portal.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the RTI application was transferred to IOCL by the respondent authority on 11.07.2023 and the CPIO, IOCL had given an interim reply vide letter dated 17.08.2023. The position in the matter regarding closure of the complaint was not informed to the appellant, either in response to the RTI application or through written submissions to the Commission. Therefore, it can be deduced that complete information has not been provided to the appellant, so far. In view of the abo