O R D E R

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, New Delhi seeking information on six points, including, inter-alia:-

1) “Provide me a copy of BHEL Unit Transfer Rules. Kindly note the request is for Transfer Rules not for Transfer Policy.

2) Provide me a copy of BHEL Promotion Rules. Kindly note the request is for Transfer Rules not for Promotion Policy.

3) List cases filed by the employees in various High Courts challenging their Unit Transfer Order since from the year 2006.

4) List cases filed by the employees in various High Courts challenging their Unit Transfer Order pending since from the year 2006 etc.”

2. The CPIO has provided point-wise reply vide letter dated 04.05.2019. Aggrieved with the said reply, the complainant filed first appeal requests the FAA to direct the CPIO to furnish copy of inter-unit transfers of Executives and non- executive employeessince from the year 2018 in soft copy. The soft copy may be forwarded to the applicant email IDbaluk4154126@gmail.com. The FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply and disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 25.06.2019.

3. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainantfiled a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission stating that the CPIO had furnished false information during the first appeal. Therefore, the complainant humbly submits that the Commission may impose suitable penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr Samir Mukherjee the CPIO to uphold the purpose of the RTI Act.

Hearing:

4. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Shilpi Sikka, CPIO/ Deputy Manager (Law) attended the hearing through audio-call.

5. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

6. The complainant submitted that the desired information has not been provided on his RTI Application dated 05.04.2019. He submitted that wrong and misleading reply has been provided by the respondent. He contended that in reply to his representation, the respondent has informed him that the transfer rules are available, whereas in reply to his RTI Application, they are saying that transfer rules are not available. Hence, the respondent has willfully with malafide intention obstructed the information under the RTI Act and hence they are not following the RTI Rules.

7. The respondent submitted thatvide their letter dated 04.05.2019, they have already provided the relevant information as exists on record. She submitted that the transfer rules are not available in their office instead the transfer policy is available and the same has already been provided to the complainant number of times. She further submitted that since representations are not dealt by the CPIO, therefore they are not liable to interpret the correctness of information provided to the complainant on his representation.

Decision:

8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant has sought copy of transfer rules, list of cases filed by the employees and other related queries. That the complainant has contended that in reply to his representation, he has been informed that transfer rules are available whereas in reply to his RTI Application, it has been informed that no such transfer rules exists on record, therefore the respondent has malafide intention to obstruct the information. The decision on the said representation of the complainant is purely a separate matter and the respondent can only provide such information as exists on their record. The respondent is not liable to interpret the correctness of the decision taken on complainant’s representation or comment upon it if raised in the RTI Application. The contention of the complainant that the information provided to the instant RTI Application is contradictory with