O R D E R

FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-

a) Please share a copy of the Staff Register and share a copy of file notation, if any, for removal of the Staff Register.

b) Information may please be shared whether similar Staff Register is maintained in other locations of HPCL like Jeevan Bharti Bldg., UCO Bank Bldg. etc. Specific reply in the affirmation ("Yes") or negative ("No") may be provided please.

c) Please share information about the penalty prescribed for handing over one's official Identity to another person as well as unauthorized absence from workplace. Previously, I sought information about applicable penal provision against errant officials carrying out Proxy Attendance which Information was denied by the CPIO who directed me to refer to CDA Rules and standing orders without considering the fact that directions are not covered under the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO was required to furnish specific information or deny the information, which was not done so in that occasion.

d) Name of the Public Authority may be shared who had borne the expenses of Shri SanjoyGhose in the year 2015.

e) It may also be informed whether Shri SanjoyGhose is an empaneled Advocate with HPCL.

Specific reply in either affirmative ("Yes") or negative ("No") may be given.

f) Information may please be shared that when this complaintof Impersonation was made gown to the public authority no action was taken and therefore, matter was referred to MOP&NG. Today itself, the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner held hearing under the RTI Act and has issued directions to file a written affidavit stating that efforts were made to trace the file. In this context, information may be shared about the action taken by HPCL as the MOP&NG's CPIO has recorded that they had referred the matter back to HPCL for giving the information to the applicant about the representation. Copy of the representation forwarded by MOP&NG to HPCL and HPCL's reply thereof may please be shared. This information is The PIO vide letter dated 26.02.2021, furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 07.04.2021, upheld the reply of the PIO.

Thereafter, approached the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Sharad Singh, CPIO & Head (HR), Mr. Shivesh Tripathi, Assistant Manager and Ms. Shivarti Agarwal, Chief Manager (HR), attended the hearing.

The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance. The Complainant vide letter dated 24.10.2023 has requested the Commission for adjournment of the instant hearing on frivolous grounds. The Commission interjected and declined the oral request of the Complainant on the ground that he had enough time to go through the cases before the instant hearing. The Commission is baffled to observe that the Complainant has visited the registry of this bench in the morning but refused to attend the hearing of his own cases and such casual, callous and careless attitude of the Complainant is being viewed adversely by the bench.

The Respondent while defending their case has submitted that an adequate reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Complainant. He further submitted that the Complainant was an employee of their organisation but due to lack of proper duty & unauthorised absence and refusal to join duty at Rewari when transferred there, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.01.2021. He added that the Complainant challenged the said suspension before the High Court in Writ Petition which was finally dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. He further added that upon revoking of suspension of the Complainant vide letter dated 03.06.2021, the Complainant was advised to report for duty at Rewari to which he did not relent upon which was treated as unauthorised absence and for this re