Moneylife: Pune: Thursday,
April 11, 2013.
The CIC
upheld the PIO's claim for exemption since the ESIC department was
investigating the total liability of the appellant's unit. This is the 71st in
a series of important judgements given by former Central Information
Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application
The Central
Information Commission (CIC), while disposing an appeal upheld the denial of
the information by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Employees Provident
Fund Organization’s (ESIC) sub-regional office at Rohtak, under Section 8(1)(h)
of the RTI Act.
While giving
this important judgement on 3 January 2011, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central
Information Commissioner said, “... it appears that the PIO's contention that
disclosing the records may lead to altering/modification of certain records
which would impede the process of investigation.”
Hisar
(Haryana) resident Anita Gupta, on 12 August 2010, sought information under the
Right to Information (RTI) Act from the PIO of the ESIC’s sub-regional office
at Rohtak. She sought information regarding records about a raid on her firm
for applicability of provident fund. Here is the information she sought...
1.
Complete
copy of 7(a) proceeding in respect of M/S Ridhhi Sidhhi Industries, in which
the 7(a) order dated 10 June 2010 has been passed by HC Malhotra, APFC,
including the complete squad’s report dated 24 June 2009.
2.
Order
sheets of proceedings held on dates as mentioned in the RTI application.
3.
Notices
of proceedings, if any, sent to employer.
4.
Statement
of PD Sinhman, EO submitted on 16 October 2009.
5.
All
other related documents relied upon by the authority for passing the 7(a)
orders.
In his reply,
the PIO stated that the information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of
RTI Act. “The records asked by the applicant are still into enquiry under 7(a)
proceedings, and thus, can be seen by applicant once they are all received by
EPFO of sub-regional office in Subhash Road, Rohtak,” he said.
Citing
unjustified and specious information provided by the PIO, Gupta filed her first
appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) while rejecting the appeal said the
reply given by the PIO was sufficient.
Gupta then
approached the CIC with her second appeal.
During the
hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC noted that the appellant (Gupta) runs a firm
which was raided for applicability of provident fund to the establishment. The
Department’s team stated that it found 49 employees working in the unit and has
therefore started an investigation to determine the liability and also the past
liability of the unit.
The
Department passed an order under Section 7(a) and was in the process of
determining the liability of the unit.
The appellant
(Gupta) wanted records which are available to the Department and the Department
is claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the Commission
noted.
The PIO also
claimed that the cash book, balance-sheet and ledger of the establishment have
not been presented before the department while Gupta said she was not aware
about this.
Mr Gandhi,
based on the available evidence and statements produced before the Commission,
said, “It appears that the PIO’s contention that disclosing the records may
lead to altering/modification of certain records which would impede the process
of investigation. The Department claimed that the investigation into the issue
of total liability of the appellant’s unit was still in the process of
determination.”
While
disposing the appeal, the Commission upheld the denial of information by the
PIO under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
