Central Information Commission, New Delhi FileNos. CIC/LS/A/2013/000954/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000955/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000956/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000957/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000958/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000959/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000960/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000961/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000962/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000963/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000964/SH, CIC/LS/A/2013/000965/SH, CIC/LS/A/2011/001784/SH and CIC/LS/A/2011/001862/SH Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19) Name of the Appellant : SHRI B. L. SUD MECHANICAL ENGINEERING & OIL TECHNOLOGIST, A-124, ANAND BAUG SOCIETY, MAKARPURA ROAD, BARODA, GUJRAT - 390010 Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : SHRI U S D PANDEY ED CHIEF GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES, OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD., WESTERN OFFICE, BASIN I/C, PRIYA DARSHINI BUILDING, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, SION, MUMBAI - 400022 Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Date of Hearing : 7 th February 2017 Date of Decision : 17 th February 2017 The matter was heard on 7.2.2017. The Appellant was present in person at NIC Studio, Vadodara. Nobody was present on behalf of the Respondents in spite of a written notice having been sent in the name of Sh U S D Pandey, E D. 2. This matter concerns compliance by the Respondents with the Commission s order/s dated 21.6.2013 in respect of 14 appeals of the Appellant heard on that date. Shri Sud stated that he had submitted his submissions consisting of 72 pages and wanted to know whether the Commission has received the same. He was informed
that the Commission was in receipt of the said submissions, of which the first page consists of copy of Commission s notice dated 30.08.2016 and the same have been taken on record. Shri Sud stated that his submissions are contained in these 72 pages and he has nothing further to add. He further submitted that he had filed 15 RTI applications consisting of 120 paragraphs and has been provided information in respect of only 2 paragraphs. He stated that he was Managing Director of M/S Drill Well Associates Co. Op. Society Ltd. (An ancillary Unit of ONGC) and did work for ONGC for 10 years, but his dues have not been paid till now. We informed him that we would confine ourselves to the issue of compliance with the Commission s order dated 21.6.2013 only and would not reopen the issues covered in the above order, as the Commission does not have the power to review its own decisions. He was also informed that the Commission is not competent to address the issue of non payment, if any, by ONGC. Shri Sud agreed with the above and stated that he has already moved High Court regarding his payments. Shri Sud submitted that he wants the information, as directed by the Commission on 21.06.2013, decision on the show cause notice issued to Shri U S D Pandey on 29.05.2013 and award of compensation of Rs 2 lakhs mentioned in the show cause notice ( against his claim of Rs 10 lakhs). 3. We have considered the submissions made by Shri Sud and note that he has made remarks against each file on the copy of Commission s order dated 21.06.2013. Accordingly, we have considered each file in the light of the remarks of Shri Sud. We have also taken into consideration the action taken report dated 1.10.2013 submitted by Shri U S D Pandey in compliance of the Commission s order dated 21.06.2013.
File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000954 4. Shri Sud has stated that order has been complied with by the CPIO, except 3(IV). We note that at point 3 (IV), the Commission had mentioned As regards para 07, it pertains to the grievance of the appellant which is being addressed in a different appeal. In view of above, no further action is necessary in respect of this file. File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000955 5. The Commission observed The Appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal. Permitted. Shri Sud has mentioned No request made. There is some misunderstanding for any withdrawal and I stand by each and every statement. However, in view of the position explained in paragraph 1 above and the clear observation of the Commission regarding Shri Sud s desire to withdraw the appeal, we would not reopen this matter. File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000956 6. The Appellant was advised to send a copy of his letter dated 9.7.2009 to Shri U S D Pandey, Group General Manager, for responding to it suitably. Shri Sud has stated Not Complied by Shri Pandey. Shri Pandey in his action taken report dated 1.10.2013 had stated that the letter dated 09.07.2009 had already been replied on 15.02.2010 by the then GM-HGS. However, the matter was being relooked into and would be responded to accordingly. Shri U S D Pandey is directed to send a further reply to the Appellant, as mentioned in his report dated 1.10.2013, if not already
done. If a response was sent earlier, a copy of the same should be sent to the Appellant. File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000957 7. The Appellant was advised to send a copy of his letter dated 2.5.1990 to Shri Pandey who in turn was directed for consequential action as per law. Shri Sud stated Not Complied by Shri Pandey. Shri Pandey in his report dated 1.10.2013 had stated that fresh efforts were being made to trace out the information. We direct Shri Pandey to provide the information to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission. File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000958 8. The Appellant was advised to send the copies of his letters dated 2.3.2009 and 14.5.2009 to Shri Pandey for necessary action as per law. Shri Sud has stated Not complied by Sh Pandey. Shri Pandey in his report dated 1.10.2013 had stated that Basin Manager, Western Onshore Basin, Baroda vide letter no. BM/WO/6.1/09-422-424 dated 22/25 May 2009 has given para wise replies for all the issues. However, in view of the letter dated 19.07.2013 from Shri B. L. Sud the matter was being relooked into. Shri Pandey is directed to convey the final position to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission. File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000959 9. The CPIO was directed to make fresh efforts to fish out the requested information (regarding the name, designation and discipline of the competent
authority who decided the reference made to the then Chairman, ONGC, in respect of Contract No. ONGC/WR/EBG/Drill Well/ Co-op/88-90/1/SH dated 3.11.1987) and furnish the same to the appellant in the event of its availability. Shri Sud has stated Not Complied by CPIO. Shri Pandey in his report dated 1.10.2013 has stated that In Charge Material Management informed that the information is very old and not traceable. In view of the above, no further action is due in this case. File Nos. CIC /LS/A/2013/000960 and CIC /LS/A/2013/000961 10. The CPIO was directed inform to the appellant, If it is true that letter dated 14.5.2009 sent by the appellant to CMD,ONGC was received in the office of the CMD and if the CMD or his subordinates passed any comments thereon, these file notings may be supplied to the appellant. However, if the said letter did not reach the office of CMD and the CMD or any of his subordinates did not make any comments thereon, the appellant may be informed accordingly. This disposes of both the cases. Shri Sud has stated, Not complied by CPIO. We note from the records that the CPIO complied with the directions of the Commission and provided information vide his letter dated 26.09.2013. Therefore, no action is required in the matter. File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000962 11. The Appellant has stated that the CPIO has complied with the directions of the Commission.
File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000963 12. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide a copy of OM No. HRC/1(46)/69 dated 6.1.1969. Shri Sud has stated Not Complied. Another circular (copy) not mentioned in the order supplied intentionally to conceal important information. Shri Pandey in his report dated 1.10.2013 has stated that the information has been provided by the CPIO on 2.8.2013. We direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant one more copy of the specific OM mentioned in the Commission s order. File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000964 13. Shri Sud has stated that the Commission s order has been complied with by the CPIO. File No. CIC /LS/A/2013/000965 14. The Commission observed that the CPIO has not exercised due diligence in responding to the RTI application dated 16.8.2011. Hence, Shri U S D Pandey, Group General Manager was directed to revisit the matter and try to fish out the requested information for supply to the appellant. Shri Sud stated No statement of accounts provided. Not complied by Shri Pandey. Shri Pandey in his report dated 1.10.2013 has stated that in view of the decision by Hon ble CIC, fresh efforts were made by the office of GGM-HGS, Geophysical Services to extract the information from the concerned Finance Section. The finance section has informed that as the systems were not computerised during those days, the details of payment including the deduction/recovery made to / from M/S Drill Well associates during the above
mentioned period could not be traced out in spite of all possible efforts made. Shri Pandey is directed to convey the above position in writing to Shri Sud. File Nos. CIC /LS/A/2011/001784 and CIC/LS/A/2011/001862 15. We note that the Commission issued show cause notice on 29.05.2013 to Shri U S D Pandey, Gen. Manager, Head Geophysical Services, ONGC, Makarpura Road, Vadodara for non compliance of Commission s decision dated 27.09.2011 in respect of appeals registered on above two files, that why a compensation of Rs 2 lakhs should not be awarded to the Appellant for the detriment suffered by him and why penal action should not be taken against him. The Commission disposed of the matter with following observations in its above mentioned order dated 21.6.2013:- 19. Before parting with this matter, I would like to observe that the appellant had filed two appeals bearing Nos. CIC/LS/A/2011/001784 and CIC/LS/A/2011/001862 earlier which were disposed of by me vide order dated 27.9.2011. The background of the matter is encapsulated in para 02 of the said order which is reproduced herein-after : 2. The background of the matter is that the appellant was a permanent employee of ONGC and was holding the position of Driller, Short Hole. ONGC had permitted him and certain other employees to constitute a Cooperative Society for the purposes of executing short hole drilling works with rigs for ONGC. The Cooperative Society, of which the appellant was a part, was given works by ONGC off and on during the period 1985 to 1995. The Cooperative Society was
subsequently wound up and the employees, including the appellant herein, reverted back to their parent Organization i.e. ONGC. The appellant retired from regular service of ONGC in 2001. It is the grievance of the appellant that the works executed by the Cooperative Society were not paid for to his satisfaction. Besides, he also has grievances about the procedure followed by ONGC in the award of works and other operational matters. In this context, he had filed two RTI applications. 20. The grievances of the appellant still stand and do not appear to have been redressed by ONGC. Needless to say, the matter has financial implications. Shri USD Pandey occupies the high position of Group General Manager in ONGC. The Commission expects him to look into the grievances of the appellant with an open mind and take such remedial action as is permissible under the rules. The Commission will appreciate if he gives a personal hearing to the appellant. The Appellant in his remarks has stated that Not Complied as no effort has been made to redress my grievances and making payment of the outstanding Bills and claims submitted to him on 21.8.2013 in his office. In response to his letter dated 13.8.2013, I met Shri U S D Pandey (HGS) in his office on 21.08.2013 and handed over to him the details of pending bills and claims required to be paid to the ancillary unit No. 1 and the related documents were also submitted. Contacted him on his cell phone several times but of no result and of no consequence. We are of the view that since the Commission considered the appeals on the above mentioned files on 21.6.2013, i.e. after the issuance of the show cause notice on
29.5.2013, and chose not to impose any penalty or award any compensation, the matter cannot be re-opened at this stage. While we would still strongly urge the Respondents to address the grievances of the Appellant, we are not competent to give a direction to the Respondents in this regard or resolve the Appellant s grievances under the RTI Act. 16. We direct Sh M.S. Tonk, Nodal Officer and CPIO, ONGC, New Delhi to coordinate with the concerned authorities to ensure compliance with the directions given above in this order, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Such information, as is provided, should be provided free of charge. In cases, where directions above have been given by name to Shri U S D Pandey, ED, it would be his responsibility to ensure compliance with the same. 17. With the above observations, the compliance issues are disposed of. 18. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/- (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Copy to :- Shri M. S. Tonk, CPIO, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., 13 th Floor, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar