Dealing assistant, the deemed PIO under Secion 5(5) of the RTI Act, was imposed penalty of Rs 1000/-

Shri Balbir Singh, the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.24.7.09 with the CPIO, O/o CPMG, Ambala requesting for information against 9 points with regard to transfer procedures. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.31.8.09 with the Appellate Authority. On not receiving any reply from the First Appellate authority, he filed a complaint dt.nil before CIC. The CIC vide its order dt.30.10.09 directed the PIO to provide the information by 30.11.09 and to show cause in writing for the delay in furnishing information, by 4.12.09.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for December 10, 2009.  Shri R.S.Yadav, CPIO, Shri S.N.Bhatia, Shri R.D.Bansal and Shri Ram Nath represented the Public Authority. The applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

Shri R.S.Yadav, CPIO vide his letter dt.-.11.09 submitted that on receipt of CIC order dt.30.10.09, the whole episode came to light and explanation of the official at fault was called for keeping the RTI application under active consideration. The RTI application was received on 27.7.09 and it was transferred to the staff section on 29.7.09 where it was to be dealt with by Shri Som Nath Bhatia, the then Dealing Assistant and Section Supervisor (Staff Section) working under the control of Shri V.K.Malhotra, the then APMG (Staff) & PIO (retired on superannuation on 30.9.09). He added that Mr.S.N.Bhatia could not put up the said RTI application to Shri Malhotra due to heavy rush of work as well as ill health and he put up the RTI application only on 3.9.09 with a draft letter addressed to the Complainant requesting him to furnish the receipt of Rs.10/- for taking further action. Shri Malhotra signed the draft letter and marked the file back to Shri Bhatia on 8.9.09. Since, the Complainant was BPL card holder, no fee was to be charged from him and as such the letter was not dispatched to the Complainant. The Respondent emphasized the fact that due to heavy rush of work, Shri S.N.Bhatia forgot to put up the file to the PIO along with the information sought by the Complainant. On receipt of the CIC’s order, information was supplied to the Complainant on 18.11.09. He further added that process for direct recruitment of Postal Assistants in Circle Office/Army Postal Service is in progress and a large number of applications received for the posts are being processed to finalize the recruitment by 31.12.09, the target date fixed by the Postal Directorate. In this way, Shri S.N.Bhatia and Shri Malhotra were busy in finalizing recruitment process of Postal Assistants and they could not supply the information timely to the Complainant. However, keeping in view the gravity of the laxity/carelessness on the part of Shri S.N.Bhatia, strict action is being taken against him.

The Commission after reviewing the explanation observed that no reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing information has been provided by the Respondents. Also, the deemed PIO, Mr. S.N. Bhatia has failed to provide the information on time not once, but twice. The first time he failed to put up the RTI application to Mr. Malhotra and left it unattended to from 29.7.09 to 3.9.09 and the second time, even after having received the approval from Mr. Malhotra on 8.9.09, failed to reply to the Complainant till 18.11.09. The Commission while holding Mr. Bhatia as the deemed PIO under Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, is constrained to impose a penalty on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and accordingly directs the Appellate Authority to recover an amount of Rs. 1000/- for a delay of 4 days (from 30.8.09 to 3.9.09) from the salary of Mr. Bhatia . The amount to be paid in a single installment through a Demand Draft in favour of PAO CAT . The Demand Draft should reach the Commission by 10th February 2010 and it should be addressed to Shri G.Subramanian, Under Secretary & Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067. The complaint is accordingly disposed off.
 
CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000956 dated 10.12.2009

The Complainant should approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his regarding misbehaviour of employees of the Post office towards the public.

Shri S.P.Singh, the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.27.8.08 with the PIO, DoP, Meerut Cantt requesting for action taken against various complaints lodged by him at Sub Post Office on 19.4.08 regarding the misbehaviour of Postal staff against public. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.5.1.09 with the Appellate Authority. On still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.10.8.09 before CIC The CIC vide its order. dt.30.10.09 directed the PIO to provide the information by 30.11.09 and to show cause in writing for the delay in furnishing information by 4.12.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for December 10, 2009. Shri U.P.Gangal, Sr. Post Master representing CPIO and Shri Ravi Goel, Office Assistant represented the Public Authority.  The Complainant was present during the hearing.

Decision

Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Meerut Division, Meerut submitted an explanation in response to the show cause notice statimng that the RTI application was received on 29.8.08 and that reply was provided on 3.9.08 reminding the Complainant that information sought in the RTI application in the instant case has already been supplied to him vide letter dated 22.7.08 and also informing him that he can post letters under UPC at any Post Office in Meerut Division. When the Commission queried as to exactly what further information the Complainant is seeking , the Complainant replied that he does not want any information and that he wants action to be taken against the Postal Department officials for having misbehaved with him.

The Commission on review of the explanation, observed that information has been provided on time and drops the penalty proceedings against the PIO. The Complainant is advised to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance regarding misbehaviour of employees of the Post office towards the public.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000776 dated 10.12.2009

Penalty of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on CPIO, Vigilance Branch, Department of Posts, O/o PMG, Allahabad

Shri Shailendra Nath Pandey, the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.22.12.08 with the CPIO, O/o PMG, Allahabad requesting for information regarding disposal of petition dt.30.5.08 about his promotion to the post of Inspector of Post Offices under PH quota.  The Asst. Director, O/o PMG, Allahabad transferred the RTI application to Vigilance Branch, O/o PMG, Allahabad on 20.1.09. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.20.3.09 with the Appellate Authority which was transferred by Shri R.S.Pal, A.D.P.S (Legal Cell) O/o CPMG, Lucknow, to Director Postal Services, O/o PMG, Allahabad on 2.4.09. On still not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.27.5.09 before CIC. The CIC vide its order dt.30.10.09 directed the PIO to provide the information by 30.11.09 and to show cause in writing for the delay in furnishing information, by 4.12.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for December 10, 2009. Shri S.K.Singh, CPIO and Shri R.Gurushankar represented the Public Authority. The Complainant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

Shri S.K.Singh, CPIO, O/o PMG, Allahabad vide his letter dt.1.12.09 in response to the show cause notice submitted that according to information given by the Supdt. of Post Offices, Ghaziabad, the Vigilance Branch was requested to provide the information vide letter dt.1.1.09 and that reply to the Complainant could not be given by the concerned branch of the office due to non-receipt of petition dt.30.5.08. He added that the first appeal dt.20.3.09 was also not received. On enquiry it came to light, (as per letter dated 23.11.09) that the petition of the Complainant was actually sent to SSPOs, Varanasi (East) Division and not to O/o PMG Allahabad vide letter dt.9.7.08. The petition of the Complainant was forwarded by SSPOs, Varanasi (East) Division to the CPMG, Lucknow vide letter dt.16.2.09. On receipt of information as detailed above, the Complainant was immediately replied to about further disposal of his petition vide letter dt.27.11.09

On reviewing the explanation provided by Shri S.K.Singh, the Commission observed that the RTI application was transferred to the Vigilance Branch on 1.1.09 and that Vigilance Branch has not provided the information. While inspecting the vigilance file brought by the Respondent to the hearing, the Commission observed that the CIC’s order dt.30.10.09 was available in the file indicating that the CPIO Vigilance section was aware of the fact that that he has to respond to the show cause notice and yet no official from the Vigilance Section attended the hearing. The Commission, therefore, holds the CPIO, Vigilance, O/o PMG, Allahabad as the deemed PIO under Section 5(5) of the RTI act and decided to impose a penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act on him for not providing the information.

Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on CPIO, Vigilance Branch, Department of Posts, O/o PMG, Allahabad and the same will be recovered from his salary in five instalments @ Rs.5,000/- per month.

The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs.5,000/- from the salary payable to CPIO, Vigilance Branch, Department of Posts, O/o PMG, Allahabad (at the time the RTI application was transferred on 1.1.09) by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of ‘PAO CAT’ in 5 equal monthly installments. The first installment should reach the Commission by 10th February 2010 with subsequent installments reaching on 10th of every month and the last installment by 10th June 2010. The Demand Draft should be addressed to Shri G.Subramanian, Under Secretary & Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000950 dated 10.12.2009

CIC-dropped penalty proceedings against the CPIO after review of the explanation submitted by the CPIO.

In the following three cases, the CIC dropped the penalty proceedings against the CPIO after considering the explanation received from the CPIO.

(a)  CPIO, Postal Directorate - Decision dated 14.12.2009

(b)  Supdt. of Post Offices, Nawada Division, Nawada 805110 - Decision dated 14.12.2009

(c)  Supdt of Post Offices, Gonda Postal Division, Gonda 271001 - Decision dated 14.12.2009

CPIO to intimate date of delivery of Speed Post Article dated 12.11.2008 otherwise to intimate the particulars of records weeded out with the rulings for weeding out of records.

Shri Devendra Prasad Singh filed an RTI application dt.12.1.09 with the PIO, DoP, Balia. He requested for proof of delivery of his speed post article sent on 12.11.08. The PIO replied on 3.2.09 requesting the Applicant to intimate the speed post No. to be able to track the article. The Applicant filed a complaint dt.7.5.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 25, 2009.
Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, IPO representing CPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

Shri Rajeshwar Yadav . CPIO cum Respondent submitted that the Appellant had requested vide RTI application dt.12.1.09 for proof of delivery of speed post article sent by him from Balia Post Office to Lucknow on 12.11.08. The CPIO replied on 3.2.09 requesting him to intimate the speed post No. to track the letter. The CPIO, meanwhile transferred the RTI application to the complaint section of the Post Office. On receipt of the speed post No from the Appellant on 11.2.09 , the CPIO wrote to Lucknow GPO on 12.2.09 requesting the CPIO Lucknow to inform the date of delivery. The Appellant on 7.5.09 once again reminded the CPIO who in turn on 23.6.09 reminded the CPIO Lucknow GPO to inform the date of delivery. The CPIO Lucknow GPO on 11.7.09 wrote back to Balia Post office to intimate to him the mode of dispatch i.e the bag in which it was sent. After this communication there was no response from the Appellant. The Respondent added that on receipt of CIC notice to appear for a hearing on 4.11.09, the Respondent contacted the Sr.Post Master, Balia HPO once again about the dispatch details and once again there was no response from him. The Respondent, Shri Yadav further stated that he personally looked into the matter and came to know from the tracking system that the speedpost article was sent from Balia SPC to Mhow RMS on 12.11.08 and from there it was dispatched to Lucknow GPO via Benaras. He was able to track the article till it reached Lucknow SPC. After that, it seems that the article was lost. He added that the Manager, SPC, Lucknow vide his letter dt.11.11.09 had informed him that no information can be provided since the records have been weeded out.

The Commission after hearing the submission of the Respondent directs the CPIO, GPO, DoP, Lucknow to provide the information about the delivery of the article to the Appellant in the event the records have not been weeded out. On the other hand, if the records has been weeded out, a copy of the rule regarding preservation of records along with proof of weeding out the same to be provided to the Appellant. The Commission holds the CPIO, Lucknow GPO as the deemed PIO u/s 5(5) and directs him to show cause why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day should not be levied on him for not responding to the RTI application even though he was informed on 12.2.09 itself to provide the information. The response to reach the Commission by 25.12.09.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000823 dated 25.11.2009

Dispute over the ownership of P&T Holiday Home at Library (Gandhi Chowk) in the city of Mussoorie:

Dr.O.P.Duggal filed an RTI application dt.2.7.09 with the PIO, DoP, Dehradun. He requested for following information in respect of P&T Holiday Home situated at Library (Gandhi Chowk) in the city of Mussoorie:

i) Is the Postal Department owner/tenant of the building.

ii) If owner from whom purchased when and at what price with photocopy of sale deed.

iii) If tenant, who is the owner, taken at what rent and from which date with photocopy of agreement deed with the owner.

The PIO replied on 4.8.09 stating that the Postal Department is the owner of the Holiday Home Campus Mussoorie and that it was transferred from the name of Mrs.M. Fuster to the President of India on 23/26 June 1960. He stated that Photocopy of the sale deed is not available at present. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.10.8.09 with the State Information Commission, Dehradun stating that the PIO had not mentioned when the saledeed would be made available. The SIC, Dehradun in turn transferred the case to CIC on 26.8.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for December 2, 2009. Shri S.K.Kandwal, ASP (Bdg) cum APIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was represented by Dr.Jyoti Marwah during the hearing.

Decision

Dr.Jyoti submitted that her father is the owner of the land on which the Postal Holiday Home stands. The Respondent, however, refuted this statement by stating that the Postal Department is the owner of the building and that it was purchased in 1960 from Mrs.Fuster. He, however, was unable to produce the sale deed as sought by the Appellant since according to him the same has been lost. He also stated that the CPIO had informed him in July that efforts are being made to get a duplicate sale deed. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides directs the CPIO to lodge an FIR with the police about the lost Sale Deed and to share a copy of the FIR with the Appellant and with the Commission and also to obtain the duplicate sale deed and provide a certified copy of the same to the Appellant before end January, 2010. The Appellant is directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 7.2.10.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000836 dated 20.11.2009

Public Authority to provide Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for the expenses incurred by the Complainant in traveling to the Commission twice for the hearing and for the harassment he has been subjected to while running from pillar to post for the information

Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta filed an RTI application dt.7.10.08 with the CPIO/Dy. Divisional Manager(PLI), O/o CPMG, Lucknow requesting for information against 17 points with regard to KVPs and NSCs. Shri R.S.Pal, A.D.P.S.(Legal Cell), O/o CPMG, Lucknow transferred the RTI application to Supdt. of Post Offices, Fatehpur Division on 14.10.08 requesting him to provide the information directly to the Applicant. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.10.12.08 with the UP Information Commission who transferred the case to CIC vide letter dt.23.5.09 . The complaint was registered at the Commission on 13.6.09. The Commission vide its order dt.30.9.09 directed the CPIO to provide the information to the Applicant by 30.10.09 and also to respond to the showcause notice issued to him by the Commission for the delay in supply of information, by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 19, 2009. The Respondents were not present during the hearing. The Applicant was present during the hearing.

Decision

The Complainant submitted that he received the information vide letter dt.5.11.09 which, however was not correct. He added that his original KVPs were stolen from his house and that he had lodged an FIR with the police in this connection. He complained that his maturity amount of Rs.30,000/- was denied to him by the officials of the Postal Department. The Commission after hearing the submission of the Appellant directs the CPIO to appear in person along with all necessary files/documents/records/registers at the Commission on 17.12.2009 at 10.30 am. The Complainant also to be present for inspection of files in the presence of a senior official of the Commission.

The Commission directs the Public Authority to provide Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for the expenses incurred by the Complainant in traveling to the Commission twice for the hearing and for the harassment he has been subjected to while running from pillar to post for the information . The amount to be paid by 15th of December.

The Commission also gives one more opportunity to the CPIO to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him for the delay in furnishing information and for providing the wrong information to the Complainant, seemingly with malafide intentions. The CPIO to submit his explanation in person at the time of the hearing on 17.12.09. A copy of his explanation also to be given to the Complainant. The complaint is disposed off with above directions.

Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000547 dated 11.11.2009

For delay in delivery of an ordinary letter, the applicant should approach a suitable forum for redressal of his grievance.

Shri Sujit Kumar filed an RTI application dt.24.10.08 with the CPIO, DoP, Motibihari. He wanted to know reasons for the delay in delivery of a letter sent by ordinary post from Bombay which was stamped on 13.9.08, and stamped at Motibihari on 19.9.08 and stamped at Sirsa Colony on 1.10.08 and was delivered by the Post Man on 3.10.08. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.16.12.08 with the Appellate Authority. On still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.13.2.09 with Bihar Information Commission who transferred the case to CIC, which was registered at CIC on 18.6.09. The Commission vide its order . dt.30.9.09 directed the n CPIO to provide the information to the Applicant by 30.10.09 and also to send a response to the showcause notice issued to the PIO by the Commission for the delay in supply of information , by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 19, 2009. Shri Satya Narayan Prasad, Asst. Supdt. of Posts and Shri Pawan Kumar, Inspector Posts represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was present during the hearing

Decision

The Complainant wanted to know why the letter which he sent by ordinary post has taken 12 days to reach from Mumbai to Sirsa Colony in Motihari in Bihar. The Respondent submitted that the delay in delivery of letter sent by ordinary post was because the pincode provided by the sender was not correct and therefore the article reached another post office and had to be redirected to the correct post office. The Commission while accepting the explanation for the delay in delivery of the letter, noted that no explanation to the showcause notice has been furnished; however condones the delay in furnishing information with a strict warning to the PIO not to deal with RTI applications with a frivolous attitude and condones the delay in providing information to the RTI application within the stipulated period and drops the penalty proceedings against the PIO.. Since the information sought relates to a grievance matter, the Complainant is advised to approach a suitable forum for redressal of his grievance. The complaint is disposed off with the above directions

Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000580 dated 19.11.2009

Xerox opy of definition of Preliminary enquiry and disciplinary enquiry to be given to the petiontioner.

Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla filed an RTI application dt.29.8.08 with the CPIO, DoP, Sasaram. He wanted to know what is meant by preliminary inquiry and the disciplinary inquiry. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.20.2.09 with the Appellate Authority. Still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.14.5..09 before CIC. The Commission vide its order of even No. dt.30.9.09 directed the respondents to provide the information to the applicant by 30.10.09 and also to send explanation in writing to the Commission for the delay in supply of information by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on November 20, 2009. Shri Jitendra Singh, CPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

After hearing the Respondent , the Commission holds that while information sought is not available in records with the Public Authority, the definitions are available in the CCS(CCA) rules which are available on the website. The Respondent may provide a photocopy of the relevant pages of the rules to the Complainant by 25 December, 2009.

Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000599 dated 19.11.2009

Details of compensation paid in the DCDRF case should be intimated to the applicant

Shri Jyotinder Patel filed an RTI application dt.15.6.09 with the CPIO, DoP, Mumbai City West Division. He sought following information relating to GPO Vs Shobha Alimchandani.

i) To provide the names and designations of the officials who were involved in the above case causing deficiency of service.

ii) Total No. of hearings till the final order.

iii) Total remuneration to the defense advocate. Whether paid per appearance or consolidated.

iv) Was the award compensation paid to the complainant individually (what was individual amount paid by each person involved) or was it paid from a common pool.

Shri R.P.Vishwakarma, CPIO replied on 14.7.09 stating that information sought cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the information is personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship with any public activity and also it is not in a larger public interest. He further added that there is no case with his division like GPO Vs. Shobha Alimchandani.

Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.29.7.09 with the Appellate Authority (Copy not in file). Ms.Abha Singh, Appellate Authority replied on 27.8.09 directing the CPIO to supply the designation of the official at fault, causing deficiency in service, as sought against point 1 and to provide available information against points 2 to 4 . In compliance with the order, the CPIO furnished point wise information to the Applicant on 7.9.09. Not satisfied with the information, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.12.9.09 before CIC stating that CPIO has not provided the information against point 4, about whether compensation was paid from the pocket of the individual or by the Public Authority. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 24, 2009. Shri Sanjay Deoram Kharat, SDI(I) representing CPIO & Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

The Respondent submitted that there was a CDRF Case No.205/2006 Shobha Rajan Alimchandani V/s. The Postmaster in Charge, Tardeo Post Office & the CPMG, GPO, Mumbai. Hence the reply given by the CPIO that there is no case with his division like GPO Vs. Shobha Alimchandani is absolutely correct. He added that as per Court judgment dt.29.4.09 wherein it was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.8000/- jointly to the Appellant within 4 weeks, the compensation was paid to Smt. Shobha Alimchandani by the Department immediately to ensure that the Court orders are complied with. After payment of compensation, the Department had fixed the responsibility on the official at fault who failed to deliver the letter & disciplinary action has been initiated to recover the loss sustained by the Department. He added that it was the postman who was found to be at fault and since he could not pay Rs.8000/- the Department had paid the amount with the understanding that it would be recovered from the postman in monthly installments. The Commission after hearing the submission of the Respondent directs the CPIO to provide the detailed information against point 4 to the RTI application to the Appellant by 24.12.09. The Appellant is directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 31.12.09.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001348 dated November 24, 2009

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE PIO AS THE INFORMATION TO THE APPLICANT WAS DELAYED IN A SUSPENSION CASE

Shri Satyendra Singh the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.15.4.09 with the PIO, DoP, Sitamarhi. He stated that he was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 27.3.08 and had been ‘enlarged’ on bail by the High Court, Patna on 1.5.08 and that he is continuing under deemed suspension. He added that Shri Satya Narayan Mahto, Accountant surrendered in the CBI Court, Patna and was also placed under deemed suspension. He was also ‘enlarged’ on bail but is continuing as such. He further stated that the rate of subsistence allowance is fixed reckoning the pay stage of pre-revised scale. In this context, he requested for information against 5 points with regard to the rate of subsistence allowance paid to Shri Satya Narayan Mahto after implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.18.5.09 with the Appellate Authority. In his appeal he stated that he has not received recommendation of the review committee for extension of suspension for next 180 days after expiry of initial 90 days. He further added that the subsistence allowance initially sanctioned is subjected to a compulsory review after 90 days. Prolonged suspension has no reason directly attributable to him and that there appears to be no reason to deny benefit of enhancement of subsistence allowance to him from its due date. The Applicant averred that the first review is compulsory and that the second review either suo moto or on his request, is permissible. But on all these issues the SPOs has been non responsive. Being aggrieved at not receiving any information even from the First Appellate Authority, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.30.6.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information. The CIC, vide its order dt.25.9.09 directed the PIO to provide information to the Complainant by 30.10.09 and to respond to the showcause notice issued by the Commission for the delay in furnishing information, by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 13, 2009. Respondents were not present during the hearing. Efforts were made several times to contact the Complainant over his phone but the lines remained busy.

Decision

The Respondent in his explanation to the showcase notice, dt.3.11.09 stated that the Complainant vide his RTI application dt.15.4.09 had sought information against five points. As the matter was related to payment of subsistence allowance and quantum thereof, the matter was referred to Post Master, Sitamarhi vide letter dt.1.5.09. The Complainant then filed an appeal on 18.5.09. Keeping in view the urgency, the response to the appeal was furnished directly to the Post Master General (NR), Muzaffarpur vide letter dt.10.6.09 and the same compliance was also furnished to the Complainant by the Regional Office, Muzaffarpur on 10.7.09. The Commission, while taking note of the fact that the information has been provided, however, directs the Post Master, Sitamarhi, under Section 5(5) of the RTI act to showcause as to why information was not provided to the Complainant within the stipulated period as given in the RTI Act. The response to reach the Commission by 24 December, 2009

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000652 dated 13.11.2009

CIC ACCEPTED THE FACT OF WEEDING OLD RECORDS CONTAINED INFORMATION OF DELIVERY OF RL PERTAINS TO THE YEAR 2004

Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.2.12.08 with the PIO, DoP, Chapra requesting for information relating to the status of three regd. Letters sent by him on 1.1.04. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.7.1.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. On still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.162.09 before State Information Commission, Patna who in turn transferred the case to CIC and the same was registered in the Commission on 18.6.09. In his complaint, the Complainant alleged that the post man, Mr.Nandlal Ram had taken bribe and destroyed three letters instead of delivering them and then had entered wrong information in the register stating that the recipients were not available. He also added that a complaint was lodged by him with the Asst. Supdt, Central Sub Division and an enquiry was conducted. However, he was not informed about the outcome of the enquiry. The CIC vide its order dt.30.9.09 directed the PIO to provide information to the Complainant by 30.10.09 and to respond to the showcause notice issued to the PIO by the Commission, for the delay in furnishing information, by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 13, 2009. Shri Pankaj K. Mishra, CPIO represented the Public Authority. The Complainant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

The Respondent submitted that the reply was furnished on 10.12.08 informing him that that records of registered letters of 2004 have been weeded out and therefore information cannot be provided. He stated that the same information was sent once again to the Complainant on 14.10.09 in response to the CIC’s order dt.14.10.09. 6. The Commission while noting that information has been provided to the Complainant within the prescribed time limit, however, directs the PIO to provide a certified copy of rules for preservation of records to the Complainant by 13.12.09 and drops the penalty proceedings against the PIO.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000659 dated 13.11.2009

CIC ORDERS FOR POLICE INQUIRY IN THE CASE OF DELIVERY OF CHEQUE BOOKS IN DAMAGED CONDITION THROUGH SPEED POST

Shri Hukma Raj Badala the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.15.12.08 with the PIO, DoP, New Delhi stating that the cheque book which was sent by HDFC through speed post on 1.11.08 had to be collected by him from the post office on 6.11.08 in a torn condition. He added that it seems from the way the envelope was torn, that a group of people in the post office is deliberately destroying his letters and that he had filed a police complaint on 8.11.08. He requested for the information on the action taken on it. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.18.5.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. On still not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.24.6.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information. The CIC vide its order dt.30.9.09 directed the PIO to provide information to the Complainant by 30.10.09 and to respond to the showcause notice issued by the Commission for the delay in furnishing information, by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 13, 2009. Shri R.L.Meena, CPIO & Shri H.S.Goyal represented the Public Authority. The Complainant was heard through audio conference.

Decision

The Commission observed that the explanation to a different showcause notice issued by the Commission has been provided by the PIO vide letter dated 12.11.09. The PIO, therefore, is given one more chance to respond to the show cause notice issued by the Commission in respect of the RTI application dated 15.12.08 and the first appeal dated 18.5.09. The response to reach the Commission by 15.12.09. With regard to the complaint filed before the Commission, the Commission holds that an earlier CIC decision given on the same issue of delivery of destroyed letters to the Complainant, in case No.CIC/AD/A/2009/001241 dt.5.11.09, holds in this case also. The decision is as follows:

In view of the repeated complaints/RTI requests of the Complainant before the CIC complaining and reiterating the same grievance time and again, the Commission is of the considered opinion that a Police Inquiry is required in the matter. Accordingly, the Commission in exercise of the provisions of Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, directs the CPIO, Department of Posts to take up with matter with the Supdt. of Police of the concerned police station and conduct an enquiry to investigate the veracity and possible remedy of the repeated alleged grievance of the applicant. The PIO is directed to submit all the documents before the police authorities pertaining to the applicant in order to facilitate the enquiry and expeditiously resolve the matter. The findings of the enquiry report may be furnished to the Complainant under intimation to the Commission by 20.12.09

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000670 dated 13.11.2009

Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed on CPIO O/O the CPMG UP Circle as no information about BCR promotion was given to the applicant.

SH. R G SINGH in the instant case had filed representations against his non promotion in HSG –II (BCR) against the CPMG UP Circle, Lucknow memo No. STA/570-RR/2002-I dated 24.11.03. A similar petition was subsequently filed before the DG Posts, New Delhi on 24.07.04 against the non lifting of the Efficiency Bar [EB] at the stage of Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 1850/-. It was the case of the Complainant that the case of EB deserved to be reconsidered. However having received no decision on his petition/s, the Complainant filed two RTI Applications dated 19.12.06 with the CPIO, Dy. Directorate General (Personnel), Ministry of Communication & IT, New Delhi seeking information about the Original Petition dated 24.07.04 regarding lifting of the Efficiency Bar. The Complainant also sought copy of decision arrived at by the DG Post in the representation dated 2.4.05, against decision of the CPMG UP Circle, Lucknow under letter No. STA/570-RR/2002-I dated 24.11.03 vide the second RTI application.

The CPIO forwarded the application to the office of the Directorate of Postal Services, CPMG vide letter dated 08.01.07 to examine the applications and reply to the Applicant in view of provisions of the RTI act 2005. However when despite sufficient passage of time, no information was received by the Applicant, he once again filed an application on 30.06.08 before the CPIO, Dy. Directorate General (Personnel), Ministry of Communication & IT, New Delhi intimating him of the non receipt of any information. Being aggrieved at non receipt of any response nor information, the Complainant approached the Central Information Commission by filing the instant Complaint dated 11.07.09 reiterating his RTI request and give a factual narration of the case. The Commission passed an order dated 29.09.09 directing the CPIO to provide information as sought by the Complainant by 30th October 2009 and also issued a Show Cause notice upon the CPIO for non supply of information within stipulated period of time as provided in the RTI Act 2005. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing on 13th November, 2009. Sh. G P Bajpai, Asst. Superintendent Post was present for the Public Authority. The Applicant was heard through Audio Conference during the hearing.

Decision

The Commission is in receipt of a communication dated 10.11.09 from the O/o CPMG, UP Circle, Lucknow stating that information to the RTI query was received in Postal Directorate and received at the O/o CPMG, UP Circle, Lucknow on 08.01.07 upon being forwarded therefrom. Due to non satisfactory service of the Complainant, financial benefit under BCR scheme was not granted to him upto 2000 and this position duly communicated by a reasoned speaking order dated 24.11.2003. Decision on the lifting of the EB was duly conveyed vide letter dated 08.07.04. It was stated in the said submission of the Respondent that the information as sought by the Appellant were provided to him even by the ADPS, Kanpur vide letter dated 07.05.2007. It was further clarified by the Respondent that his representation had been forwarded/transferred under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 by Circle Office, Lucknow to Regional Office, Kanpur for further action from where it reached the O/o SPOs Kanpur, Muffassil Division on 30.05.05, since he is the custodian of information. Meanwhile vide a communication dated 23.09.08 the Respondent from the Kanpur Office had sought certain clarificatory information from the Complainant whereas no information was received from the Complainant. However the Complainant, heard through audio conference, contended that the Respondent’s submissions were incorrect and that information as sought by him had not been received till date.

The Commission observes that it is an admitted fact that the RTI application has been lying with the SPOs, Muffassil Division, Kanpur since 30.05.2005 and no communication nor information has been received therefrom ever since. Hence, the Commission directs the SPOs, Muffassil Division, Kanpur to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day should not be imposed on him for not providing the information within the stipulated period of 1 month as given in the RTI Act, 2005. It is also observed that no explanation has been offered by the Respondent Public Authority to the Show Cause notice. Accordingly a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is being directed to be recovered from the salary of the CPIO, O/o CPMG, UP Circle, Lucknow in five equal installments for violation of the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 and non furnishing of response to the RTI application way beyond the stipulated period as provided in the RTI Act 2005. The penalty should be paid by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of “PAO, CAT” payable at New Delhi and send the same to Sh. G. Subramanian, Assistant Registrar, Central Information Commission. The first installment should reach by 15th Dec, 2009 and the final installment by 15th April 2010.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000691 dated 13.11.2009

Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed as no evidence for communication of supplying the information was produced.

MR. ASHOK PRATAP SINGH filed an RTI application dated 29.05.09 with the CPIO /Sr. Superintendent of Posts, Azamgadh seeking information about certain appointments done by one Sh. R K Chauhan, Sub Divisional Inspector, West Sub Division Azamgadh. The Applicant queries were as follows:

1. Whether the recruitment of 16 people were done considering the UP Educational Board’s High School examination equivalent to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad’s preliminary Examination [Prathama Pariksha] or not. If so, on what basis?
2. Whether the recruitment of 6 people were done on the basis of degrees from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, and whether Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindavan featured in the list of Fake University according to the UGC. If that be so, are the appointments valid?

However when despite sufficient passage of time, no information was received by the Complainant, he approached the Central Information Commission by filing a Complaint dated 15.07.09 reiterating his RTI request.The Commission passed an order dated 30.09.09 directing the CPIO to provide information as sought by the Complainant by 30th October 2009 and also issued a Show Cause notice upon the CPIO for non supply of information within stipulated period of time as provided in the RTI Act 2005. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing on 13th November, 2009. Sh. S P Rai, Inspector Post, Azamgarh present for the Public Authority. The Applicant was represented by Sh. Kuldip Singh, Advocate during the hearing.

Decision

The Commission is in receipt of a communication dated 27.10.09 from the O/o Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices stating that information to the RTI query had already been sent to the Complainant under office letter dated 25.06.09. The para-wise and item wise response furnished to the Complainant on 25.06.09 was once again reiterated in the reply dated 27.10.09. While answering that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad’s preliminary Examination [Prathama Pariksha] was equivalent to the UP Educational Board’s High School examination, the Respondent placed reliance on an annexed copy of the notification of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Likewise the next question was also answered to state that the Adhikari Pariksha conducted by the Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan is equivalent to High School examination based on communication received in this regard from the Secretary, UP Board. The Complainant vide his letter dated 10.11.2009 submitted before the CIC that he had received the information only on 30.10.2009 as opposed to the misrepresentation by the respondent of having furnished the information on 25.06.2009. The Complainant further pointed out that the Respondent has not even mentioned the letter number since the facts are misrepresented.

It is observed from the perusal of records that the Respondent Public Authority had not furnished any evidence of having sent the information on 25.06.2009. In addition, no explanation has been offered to the Show Cause notice. Hence a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is being directed to be recovered from the salary of the CPIO, O/o Sr. Superintendent of Post, Pradhan Dakghar, Azamgarh officiating at the time of filing of the appeal by the Complainant, in five equal installments for violation of the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 and delay in responding to the RTI application 120 days beyond the stipulated period as provided in the RTI Act 2005. The penalty should be paid in 5 equal installments by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of “PAO, CAT” payable at New Delhi and the same to be sent to Sh. G. Subramanian, Assistant Registrar, Central Information Commission. The first installment should reach by 15th Dec, 2009 and the final installment by 15th April 2010.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000712 dated 13.11.2009

Penalty of Rs.25000/ is imposed on the PIO (Supdt of POs Rohtas Division) for non sending the attested photocopy of the letter

Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla filed an RTI application dt.29.8.08 with the PIO, DoP, Sasaram requesting for the attested photocopy of the letter No.BB-40 dt.8.7.96 sent to Regional Office, Ranchi. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.19.2.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. Being aggrieved at still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.24.4.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information. The CIC vide its order dt.29.9.09 directed the PIO to provide information to the Complainant by 30.10.09 and to respond to the show cause notice issued to him by the Commission for the delay in furnishing the information, by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 13, 2009.Both the Complainant and the Respondent were not present during the hearing.

Decision

Based on submissions on record, the Commission directs the PIO to provide all the information by 13.12.09. Since the Respondent has not provided any explanation for not having responded to the RTI application, the Commission decided to impose a penalty on the PIO. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.25000/ is imposed on the official who was officiating as the PIO at the time of filing the RTI application, and the same will be paid by him in 5 equal monthly installments. The amounts may be recovered from the salary payable to the official by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of ‘PAO CAT’ . The first installment should reach the Commission by 10th January 2010 and the last by 10th May 2010. The Demand Draft should be addressed to Shri G.Subramanian, Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar, Central Information Commission, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067.The complaint is disposed off with above directions.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000647 dated 13.11.2009

Penalty of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the designated PIO - SPOs Munger Division, Bihar

Shri Ram Niwas Gupta filed an RTI application dt.26.9.08 with the PIO, DoP, Munger requesting for information against 5 points related to the action taken on his complaints dt.7.2.08 and 10.5.08 besides details about his savings account. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.29.11.08 with the State Information Commission, Patna who in turn transferred the case to CIC which was registered on 16.6.09. The CIC vide its order dt.25.9.09 directed the PIO to provide information to the Complainant by 30.10.09 and also to respond to the showcause notice issued by the Commission for the delay in furnishing of information, by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 13, 2009. Both the Complainant and the Respondents were not present during the hearing.

Decision

The Commission directs the PIO to provide all the information by 15.12.09. The Commission observed that the Respondent had not provided any explanation to the showcause notice and accordingly decided to impose a penalty on the designated PIO at the time of filing of the RTI application by the Complainant. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the designated PIO and the same will be paid by him in 5 equal monthly installments, the amount to be recovered from the salary payable to the official. The first installment of Rs.5000/- should reach the Commission by 10th January 2010 and the last by 10 May, 2010. The Demand Draft should be addressed to Shri G.Subramanian, Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar, Central Information Commission, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067. The Complainant is directed to inform the Commission on reciet of the information by 20.12.09. The complaint is disposed off with above directions.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000559 dated 13.11.2009

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATIONS TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT IN THE CASE OF FRAUDULENT KVP DISCHARGE

Shri Sanjeev Verma filed an RTI application dt.4.11.08 with the PIO, DoP, Gorakhpur requesting for information on action taken on his request in his letter dt.7.5.08 and asking whether the fraudulent payment against KVPs were audited or not and what action has been taken against the offenders. On not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.26.5.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information. The CIC vide its order dt.25.9.09 directed the PIO to provide information to the Complainant by 30.10.09 and to respond to the show cause notice for the delay in furnishing of information, by 5.11.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 13, 2009. Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, IPO representing CPIO represented the Public Authority.The Applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

The Respondent submitted that point wise information was provided on 28.11.08 informing the Complainant that the enquiry is being conducted by the enquiry officer, Sub Divisional Inspector (Central Sub Division), Balia. He also added that on receipt of hearing notice from CIC, the same information was sent once again to the Complainant on 28.10.09. He further stated that the preliminary enquiry has been conducted and the paid vouchers have been received which he did not possess at the time of replying to the RTI application on 28.11.08. Copies of paid vouchers have been furnished to SDI(Central Sub Division), Balia and only after analyzing them it would be possible to identify the offenders and till such time information against point 3 cannot be provided. He expressed his hope that the enquiry would be completed within one month. The Commission holds that available information has been provided to the Complainant and directs the PIO to inform the Complainant about the outcome of the enquiry and also to provide the enquiry report as well as the action taken on the offenders by 31.1.2010.

Since information has been provided well within the prescribed period, the Commission drops the penalty proceedings against the PIO..

Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000507 dated 13.11.2009

CIC dropped penalty proceedings against the PIO as the enquiry details of lost RL were intimated

MRS. KRISHNA SHARMA filed her RTI application on 09.01.09 with the PIO / Department of post, Allahabad requesting for information related to his LIC No.2870 dated 25.10.08 which had matured who had been sent to her along with Post Office and who have received the same. On not receiving any reply from the PIO, the Applicant filed a Complaint before the CIC on 27.07.09. The Commission, vide its notice dated 30.9.09 directed the PIO to provide the information and also to respond to the showcause notice issued for the delay in furnishing the same, by 5 November, 2009.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for 13th November, 2009. Mr. Manu Bhai Sah, C.I. & CPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

The Commission received a letter dated 26.10.09 from the Post Office, Allahabad. The Respondent submitted that on 13.01.09 the Sr. Postmaster, Allahabad sent a letter to the Manager, LIC, Allahabad with a copy to the Complainant against her RTI application. The Respondent further stated that a letter dated 26.02.09 was again sent informing the Complainant that a search bill had been issued by the Sr. Post Master and that the article was traced till Allahabad PO after which the article got lost.. On 17.09.09 the Applicant was provided with the necessary form to be duly filled in for claiming compensation as per Rules. The Respondent also informed the Commission that action has been taken against the officer who was responsible for the lapse. The Respondent further added that the LIC had issued a duplicate cheque to the Complainant for Rs.20,000/- on 29.05.09. The Commission while holding that the available information has been provided to the Appellant and that the Appellant’s grievance seems to have been redressed, directs the PIO to send a copy of the Enquiry report to the Complainant by 10the December, 2009. On review of the explanation to the showcause notice for the delay in furnishing of information, the same was found to be reasonable and accordingly the Commission drops the penalty proceedings against the PIO.

CIC/AD/C/2009/000746 Dated 13th November, 2009

COMPLETE INFORMATION IN A DISCIPLINARY CASE IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT AS INVESTIGATION IS OVER

Shri K.Kaliyamurthy filed an RTI application dt.23.6.09 with the PIO, DoP, Cuddalore requesting for information against 4 points related to the MO fraud detected at Reddiyur S.O. The PIO replied on 10.7.09 informing him that the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation and denied information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the information, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.28.7.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that the case was detected in 2004 and that the investigation has already been completed and officials involved have also been charge-sheeted. He, therefore, averred that the provisions of 8(1)(h) will not apply in this case. The Appellate Authority in his order dt.14.8.09 informed the Applicant that charge sheet has not been issued under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) rules by getting the Presidential sanction. Completion of the investigation would mean the issue of charge sheet and other consequent proceedings. He, therefore, upheld the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.15.9.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 9, 2009. Shri V.S.Mani, PIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

The Respondent submitted that the Appellant was working as a Sub Post Master in Reddiyur S.O when the MO fraud was detected by him in Nov.2004. The Appellant was then suspended from service due to supervisory lapses on his part, in Dec.2004 and he retired on 31.12.2004. The Respondent further stated that the reply to the RTI application was given by his (the PIO’s) predecessor who has since been transferred on promotion and that he had taken over charge as the PIO only on 28.10.09. While stating that chargesheet has yet to be issued to the Appellant, the Respondent admitted that information ought to have been provided since the investigation is over and also since the information sought by the Appellant is already in the public domain as the public is aware of the fraud and the amount of money involved as also the names of officials involved in the fraud as offenders and co-offenders. The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to provide complete information against all the points as sought in the RTI application to the Appellant by 9.12.09. The Appellant is directed to submit a compliance report of the above decision to the Commission on receipt of information, by 16.12.09. The appeal is disposed of with above directions

CPIO RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT GIVING THE INFORAMTION (COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN RL NON DELIVERY CASE)

Shri Vijaya Krishna Tripathi filed an RTI application dt.14.6.08 with the CPIO, DoP, Deoria requesting for copies of charge sheet issued to the officers who were found to be responsible for the delay in the delivery of the articles. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.8.8.08 with the Appellate Authority stating that he has not received the information. The PIO replied on 18.8.08 requesting the Applicant to deposit Rs.30/- towards supply of information. The applicant then sent Rs.30/- by way of IPO vide his letter dt.27.8.08 to the CPIO. However, on not receiving any information, he filed a second appeal dt.13.10.08 before CIC reiterating his request for the information.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 11, 2009. Shri B.B.Ram, ACPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was present during the hearing.

Decision

The Appellant submitted that the case relates to non-delivery of an article which contains documents relating to a legal dispute and that he had lost the case in court due to its non-delivery. He added that 5 officials have been charge sheeted for the delay in delivery by the Post Office and that he is seeking copies of those charge sheets. The Respondent handed over the certified copies of charge sheets to the Appellant in the presence of the Commissioner. The Commission directs the CPIO to return Rs.30/- requested by him vide his letter dt.18.8.08 to the Appellant by 20.11.09. The Commission also directs the CPIO to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day (Maximum Rs.25000/-) should not be levied on him for not responding to the RTI application within the stipulated time prescribed under the Act despite the Appellant having deposited Rs.30/- as sought by him. The CPIO is directed to submit the explanation in person on 16.12.2009 at 11.15 am. Since no fee is payable at the appeal stage, the IPO No.72E 558615 for Rs.10/- is returned herewith. The appeal is disposed of with above directions.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/X/09/065 dated 11.11.2009

Personal info can be sought under RTI, says HC

CHENNAI: Can personal information such as an address of an employee or a pensioner be demanded under the provisions of the Right To Information(RTI) Act? Yes, says the Madras high court.

Justice K Chandru, pointing out that the writ petitioner M Kaliaperumal of Chennai wanted the personal details only to execute a court decree, said: "A pensioner does not cease to become totally out of control from the government. On the contrary, his conduct and character are continuously monitored by the central government. In that context, the whereabouts of such pensioner is also very much relevant and it cannot be a private information. The authorities are bound to help in the execution of court orders."

Kaliaperumal approached the postal department authorities at Gudur in Andhra Pradesh, seeking information about a man named K Ramachandra Rao, against whom a court order had been passed in a forgery case. Unable to find him at his residence, Kaliaperumal filed an RTI application demanding to know the postal address of Rao as the latter had been receiving his pension from the Gudur post office. However, the RTI plea was rejected on the ground that this was a personal information and had no public interest. His appeal too met with the similar fate.

Pointing out that the address was sought only to execute a court order, Justice Chandru said Kaliaperumal was not able to take further civil and criminal action against Rao as the latter's address was not known. Directing the authorities to furnish the correct address of Rao within 30 days, the judge said the plea did have a public interest as the pensioner's exact whereabouts would clear doubts as to whether such a pensioner really existed on the date of receipt of his pension or whether a fraudulent claim had been made on his behalf. "Such information cannot be denied," he said.

Source : Times of India - Chennai 21.11.2009

Appellant to provide details about the certificates including the maturity dates, maturity amounts, name of her late father etc. to trace

Ms.E.G.Jayalakshmi W/o E.Gnana Sekhar Nadu Street Chinthalapattadai @ V.P.R. Pet B.O.Nagari S.O. 517 590 Chittoor Andhra Pradesh filed an RTI application dt.18.2.09 with the CPIO, DoP, Chengalpattu requesting for information regarding the money claimed by her sister from the MIS accounts opened by her late father in which both she and her sister’s names were given as nominees. The CPIO replied on 3.3.09 denying the information u/s 8(1)(e). Not satisfied with the reply, the Aapplicant filed an appeal dt.1.4.09 with the Appellate authority stating that all the accounts held in her father’s name had either both her and her sister or one of them as nominees. The Appellate Authority replied on 30.4.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.nil before CIC reiterating her request for the information.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for October 22, 2009. The Respondents were not present during the hearing. The Applicant was heard through audio conference.

Decision

The Appellant stated that her father had expired last year and that he left only a list of the MIS Accounts he held in the Post Office along with the dates on which he had opened the accounts and the maturity dates. When asked by the Commission as to whether she has the account Nos, she replied in the negative. She added that all the documents are with her sister and requested for copies of the certificates of those accounts in which her late father had named her as the nominee as she feared that her sister would otherwise grab the money by fraud.
The Commission holds that duplicate certificates cannot be issued to the Appellant as the originals are already with her sister. However, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide certified photocopies of all the Certificates in which she is a nominee either singly or jointly with her sister, once the Appellant provides details she possesses about the certificates including the maturity dates, maturity amounts, name of her late father etc. to the CPIO as these details are required for locating the copies of certificates in the Post Office. Information to be provided by 15 November, 2009 to the Appellant.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001190 dated 22.10.2009

EVEN THOUGH THIRD PARTY INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE GIVEN, THE CPIO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT RESPONDING THE RTI APPLICATION

Shri Bharat Devji Dedhia H.No.24/3, Saptashri Co. Op Society Daftry Road Malad (E) Mumbai 400 097 filed an RTI application dt.27.10.08 with the CPIO, O/o CPMG, Mumbai requesting for information against 6 points relating to Account No.653486, 653933 and 679200. The CPIO replied on 16.3.09 denying the information u/s 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.17.4.09 with the Appellate Authority (copy not in file). The Appellate Authority replied on 8.5.09 stating that as per section 11 of the RTI Act, the nominee was addressed to give his consent to reveal the information related to him but till date he has not provided the consent. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.8.8.09 before CIC stating that information sought is related to the account of his minor daughter and is required to unearth wrong committed by the nominee in both the accounts.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for October 22, 2009. Shri Daya Shukl, ASPos representing the Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority The Applicant was tried over phone but no contact was established

Decision

The Respondent submitted a rejoinder during the hearing which stated that the Appellate Authority, after going through the records, found that the Account Nos.653486, 653933 & 679200, about which the Appellant is seeking information, are not related to the Appellant in any way (and are not in the name of the Appellant’s minor daughter as contended by him in his second appeal) but these three accounts have been opened by different persons jointly, namely Shri Narshi N.Savla and Chetna B.Dedhia (both around 40 years old and not minors) on 31.7.2003, 7.8.2003 and 6.8.04 respectively. He added that after the death of the depositors, the due amount was paid to the nominee Shri Rajesh N.Savla on 8.3.08 and as the information sought relates to third party i.e. Shri Rajesh N.Savla, his consent for disclosure of information was sought on 2.1.09 but the third party did not reply. The Respondent also added that the Applicant is misleading the Commission by stating that the information sought relates to his daughter who is still minor whereas the records available with them proves that the said claim of the Appellant is false and misleading as is also evident from the Mrs. Chetna Bharat’s Death Certificate dt.29.12.07 issued by the B.M.C.Mumbai indicating that Mrs. Chetana Bharat died on 8.11.06. The Respondent produced copies of relevant documents to substantiate his arguments.
The Commission is unable to understand the reasons for the Appellant misleading the Commission by distorting facts and declaring that the Accounts belong to his minor daughter when, in reality, they belong to third parties who are in no way related to him. One can only assume that the Appellant is seeking the information to pursue his own personal agenda. In the light of this observation, and also since the information sought relating to Accounts, date of maturity, amounts redeemed etc. is personal information (Mr. Rajesh Savla), the disclosure of which has no relation with any public activity or interest, the Commission denies the information to the Appellant.
The Commission directs the CPIO to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day (Maximum Rs.25000/-) should not be levied on him for not responding to the RTI application within the stipulated time period prescribed in the Act. The response should reach the Commission by 10.11.09

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001195 dated 22.10.2009

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE CPIO FOR NOT GIVING REPLY RELATING TO DELIVERY OF SPEED POST ARTICLE

Shri Prem Kumar Poddar Lal Bazaar filed an RTI application dt.19.6.09 with the CPIO, DoP, Betiya requesting for information about the delivery of 3 speed post articles. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.21.7.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. The Appellate Authority replied on 8.8.09 stating that the CPIO has replied on 17.7.09, and also enclosed a copy of the CPIO’s reply. Being aggrieved with this reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.17.8.09 before the CIC.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for October 22, 2009. The Respondents were not present during the hearing. The Applicant was heard through audio conference.

Decision

The Appellant stated that he did not receive the CPIO’s reply dt.17.7.09 nor was it enclosed along with his Order by the Appellate Authority as stated by him in his letter dt.8.8.09. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information requested by the Appellant by 15.11.09 and also to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day (Maximum Rs.25000/-) should not be levied on him for not responding to the RTI application within the stipulated time as prescribed under the Act. The response should reach the Commission by 15.11.09

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001202 dated 22.10.2009

CPIO SHOULD EXPEDITE REFUND OF AMOUNT TO THE SPMs AND TO ALLOW TO THEM TO INSPECT THE FILES

Shri Chaturbhuj Gangai Sub Post Master Kuruda SO Balasore 756 056 filed an RTI application dt.8.4.09 with the CPIO, DoP, Balasore requesting for information against 10 points related to the post quarters supplied for Kuruda SO for the period 2003 to 2008 including proof of occupation, floor area required for a single handed delivery SO SPM and rent paid to the house owner of Kuruda SO etc. The CPIO replied on 7.5.09 denying the information u/s 8(1)(j). Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.1.6.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that denial u/s 8(1)(j) is not applicable in this case. The Appellate Authority replied on 15.7.09 directing the CPIO to provide information against all the points raised in the RTI application within 15 days. In compliance with the Apppellate Authority’s order the CPIO provided information on 29.7.09. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.11.8.09 before the CIC.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for October 22, 2009. Shri Golak Chandra Mohanty, CPIO and Shri Pradeep Kumar Lenka CAPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was represented by Shri Bhagirathi Das

Decision

The Respondent stated that he has joined as CPIO recently and that his predecessor who is now in Puri has denied the information u/s 8(1)(j). He admitted that the electricity was disconnected from 29.9.03 to 20.3.06 and that a new meter was installed on 21.3.06 after a sum of Rs. Rs.5000 was deposited on 9.3.06. He also admitted that a sum of Rs.140/- per month was deducted from the then SPMs Shri Purna Chandra Biswal from 1.3.03 to 31.3.04 and from Shri Sankarsan Singh from 1.4.04 to 31.12.04. No deductions were made from 1.1.05. The Appellant stated that amount has been recovered illegally from them and demanded refund of the amount. He also stated that information provided against point 6 is not correct. Some information related to the refund of money was also handed over to the Appellant during the hearing.
The Commission, after hearing the arguments, directs the CPIO to provide information against points ix of the RTI application to the Applicant and also recommends that the CPIO expedite the refund of recovery effected from two sub post Masters. With regard to points 2 and 3 of the reply dated 29.7.09, the Commission directs the CPIO to allow the Appellant inspection of the relevant 4 files, viz, personal files of Shri Purna Chandra Biswal and Shri Sankarsan Singh, electricity file, Kuruda building file and the Union file. The entire exercise should be over by 30.11.09
The Commission also directs the CPIO, DoP, Puri to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day (Rs.25000) should not be levied on him for denying the information u/s 8(1)(j). The response should reach the Commission by 15.11.09.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001207 dated 22.10.2009

THE APPLICANT MAY INSPECT THE APPOINTMENT FILES AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED TO BE FURNISHED

Mr. Madan Mohan Pathak, Village – Saamar, P.O. Mahisotha, Bhaya – Buddhangara Dedhi, Sithamarhi – 843 318 filed his RTI application on 02.03.09 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, Sitamarhi requesting for information against 4 points including names of those who have been appointed as Postmaster along with their applications and certificates from for the period from 01.03.08 to 02.03.09, in respect of several posts. The PIO replied on 19.03.09 stating that the information sought is confidential in nature and that it cannot be provided. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 11.04.09 reiterating his request for the information. On not receiving any reply from the First Appellate Authority, the Applicant filed his second appeal before the CIC on 31.7.09 once again seeking the information.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for 22nd October, 2009. Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent were present for the hearing.

Decision

The Appellant may be invited to inspect the relevant files and all information as sought in the RTI request to be furnished to the Appellant. Inspection to be completed and information provided by 10 November, 2009. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001208 dated 22.10.2009

THE APPLICANT SHOULD PRODUCE THE NEWSPAPER CUTTING WHICH SAYS THAT GDS ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. Chander Bhan Singh Retd. EDMP, Village & Post – Khiriya, Dist. Mau, mau – 275101 filed his RTI application on 20.06.09 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, Lucknow. He wanted to know the applicability to him of what he read in a newspaper regarding a Supreme Court Ruling that all GDS shoild be considered as Central Government employees. According to the Applicant this Supreme Court Ruling has not been implemented in UP. The CPIO replied 07.07.09 stating that no such Supreme Court ruling or instruction has been received in his office. Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 16.09.09 reiterating his RTI request for information. The Appellate Authority, in his order dated 06.08.09, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant filed his Second Appeal before the CIC once again seeking information.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing on 22nd October, 2009. The CPIO, Mr. Pawan Kumar was heard over the phone. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.

Decision

The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had not enclosed any copy of the newspaper cutting regarding the so called Supreme Court Ruling ordering that all GDS employees should be considered as Central Government employees. He further added that no such instruction has so far been received by his office or by any other office of the Department across India. In the absence of such an order/instructions no information could be provided to the Appellant. The Commission after hearing the submissions of the Respondent holds that relavant information has been furnished to the Appellant and accordingly disposes off the appeal.

>CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001252 dated 22.10.2009

APPLICANT SHOULD PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED DURING 2001 TO TRACE OUT THE DISPOSAL

The Applicant Mr. C.M. Parashar,S/o Late Shri Ramjilal Parashar, R/o Plot No.2 cha, 10, Aravali Vihar, Alwar-301002filed his RTI application dated 08.10.07 with the CPIO Department of Posts, New Delhi requesting for information about the disposal of his mercy petition of 2001 to the President of India The CPIO replied on 02.11.07 stating that “the petitioner’s right extends only to seeking information as defined in Section 2(f) either by pinpointing the file, documents, paper or record, etc., or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified Public Authority”. The CPIO requested the Applicant to specify the file /document/record so that information may be provided. Aggrieved with this reply, the Applicant filed his Complaint before the CIC at the delay in furnishing the information on 03.07.09 and reiterating his request for it.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for 24 September, 2009. Mr. A Ko Ghosh, CPIO and Mr. S.K. Behera, Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was present during the hearing.

Decision by the CIC

The Commission on perusal of the submissions available on record, directed the Appellant to hand over a copy of the mercy petition to the CPIO during the hearing, which the Appellant did. The CPIO to provide information on action taken, to the Appellant, by 25.10.09

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000693 dated 25 September 2009

THE APPLICANT DID NOT REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF JHUGGI COLONY, BUT WANTED TO KNOW THE ACTION TAKEN ON HIS TWO LETTERS

The Applicant Mr. B.L. Sharma,General Secretary, BSNL, MTNL, RWA, 1768, GPO Compound, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006.filed his RTI application on 12.02.09 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, New Delhi requesting for information on action taken on two of his letters dated 28.10.8 and 12.01.09 regarding demolition of unauthorized Jhuggi No.2, opposite Quarter no. 1768, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

The CPIO replied on 02.03.09 stating that no material information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act-2005 has been asked and that demolition of jhuggis is not covered under it. Not satisfied with the reply from the CPIO the Applicant filed his First appeal on 24.03.09 requesting for information once again. The Appellate Authority replied on 27.04.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed his Second appeal before the CIC on 18.07.09 reiterating his request.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for 29 September, 2009. Mr. Ganga Prasad, AD(Bldg) & CPIO and Mr. Janardan Singh AD(Bldg) represented the Public Authority. The Applicant Mr. Banwar Lal Sharma and Mr. Ram Prasad were present during the hearing.

Decision by the CIC

The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is requesting for demolition of a Jhuggi colony and that this activity does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act. The Appellant however, stated that under the RTI Act he is not seeking demolition but wanting to know action taken on his two letters dated 28.10.08 and 12.01.09 regarding demolition of the Jhuggis. The Respondent replied that after the sealing of the place on 17.10.08 , no further action has been taken by the Department except posting a security guard in the premises to ensure that no unauthorized construction is taken up in that area.

The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to provide details of the security agency appointed to look after the said area and also to inform the Appellant the details of Competent authority whom the Appellant can approach for demolition of the Jhuggis in the Postal Department. The information to be provided by 25.10.09.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001136 Dated 29 September 2009

PHOTOSTAT COPIES TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE CPIO AND HE SHOULD EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN GIVING THE INFORMATION

MR. SUKHDEV filed an RTI application dated 28.04.08 with the CPIO/Deptt of Posts, Jaipur, requesting for information against 3 points including photocopy of the IPO roster register, reasons for not announcing vacancy for SC, ST Post in IPO 2002-06. The Asstt. Director (Rectt. & Estt) replied on behalf of the CPMG, Rajasthan Circle on 19.3.08 providing information against the 3 points. The Applicant also received a letter from the CPIO dated 8.5.08 requesting the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 480/- for photocopying 240 pages of the roster register. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant herein filed a First Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 09.04.09 on the ground that the photocopied pages furnished to him are not certified and that information furnished against the remaining points is not correct. The First Appellate Authority replied on 12.05.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO and maintaining that information provided is correct. Being dissatisfied with the information provided by the Appellate Authority, the Appellant herein filed a Second Appeal before the CIC on 28.07.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on 24th September, 2009. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, ASP(Court), represented the CPIO of the Public Authority. The Applicant, Mr. Sukhdev, was present in person during the hearing.

Decision by the Commission

The Appellant stated that all information has been received by him and that he is satisfied with it. However he stated that the money for photocopying charges was deposited on 12.05.08 and the information was provided 1 year later. However the CPIO produced the letter dated 07.10.08 by which he had provided the required information along with the photocopy IPO roster register. The Commission after hearing both sides, directs the CPIO to showcause as to why a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day should not be imposed on him for not providing information on time even after having received the photocopying charges. The response to reach the Commission by 2 October, 2009. The CPIO to certify the information already provided to the Appellant. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001134 DATED 24.9.2009

INVESTMENT MADE INTO POSB BY LATE HUSBAND IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE WIFE AFTER TRACING THE DETAILS WITH THE HELP OF AGENT

Ms. Bhavika Sham Chauhan filed RTI application on 04.02.09 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, Dhule requesting for information seeking details about various accounts held in Post office by her husband. The Post Master, Dhule replied to the Applicant stating that according to the Appellant’s letter a large investment has been made in the Nation Saving scheme by her husband . However, he is unable to provide any information without the account number, date of investment and the amount invested or the agents names etc. Not satisfied with reply the Applicant filed her first appeal on 26.02.09 stating that she has provided whatever information is available with her. The First Appellate Authority replied on 23.03.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with the reply of the First Appellate authority the Applicant filed her Second appeal before the CIC on 03.07.09 reiterating her request for the information.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for 30 September, 2009 and Mr. D R Khatade, Sr. Supdt & CPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was heard through audio conference during the hearing.

Decision by the CIC

The Appellant stated that she has no information whatsoever about the details of investments made by her husband in the Post Office. However, during the course of the discussion the Appellant provided a name of one of the Post Office agents who visited her late husband regularly to collect money from him to be deposited in the Post office. The Respondent admitted that he is aware that the agent works for the Post Office. The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to locate the agent (Mannu Bhai), and with the help of the agent locate the information and provide the same to the Appellant by end of October, 2009.

CIC Decion No CIC/AD/A/2009/001130 dated 30.9.2009

SEEKING OPINIONS SOMETHING THAT MAY HEPPEN IN FUTURE DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION GIVEN UNDER 2(f)

Mr. R.P. Singh filed his RTI application on 08.04.09 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, Lucknow requesting for information against 7 points related CCS (CCA) Rules 1995 in respect of leave encashment, penalty prescribed etc. The CPIO replied on 27.05.09 providing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his First appeal on 01.06.09 requesting for the information against points 6 and 7. The Appellate Authority replied on 15.06.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed his Second appeal on 04.07.09 reiterating his request for information against points 6 and 7.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for 30 September, 2009 with the following decision.

The Appellant stated that he has not received information against points 6 and 7 of the RTI request. The Respondent submitted that in points 6 and 7 the Appellant is seeking opinions about something that may happen in future and that the information sought does not conform with the definition of information given under Section 2(f). The Commission, after hearing the Respondent, upholds the decision of the Appellate Authority and accordingly rejects the appeal.

Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001148 dated 30.9.2009 of CIC

Charge Sheet issued to another official can be disclosed after punishment is over.

Mr. S.C. Verma, Assistant Director (TRG), PTC Saharanpur, Saharanpur has requested for charge sheet issued to one Mr. Bhawani Prasad Sharma , SSPOs Chamba along with punishment order awarded to the officer related to DASUYA (HO) Punjab fraud case. The CPIO replied on 3.2.09 denying the information under Section 8(1)(j of the RTI Act, as personal information. Not satisfied with this reply, the Applicant filed his first appeal against the order of the CPIO stating that punishment awarded to a public servant in a fraud case is a public document and reiterating his request for the information. The Appellate Authority in his Order dated 13.3.09 decided that the memo containing punishment orders of a Government servant is a personal document of the concerned official which is kept in confidential records of the official.

The Commission directed the CIO to disclose the information as in the instant case, the enquiry has been completed and the punishment has been awarded and also since the Public Authority has not made out any case for withholding the information under any of the exemptions under Clause 8(1.). The Commission considered opinion that information sought relates to the activities undertaken by an individual while discharging his functions in his official capacity and that the Public Authority needs to disclose such information as it is accountable to the Public.

Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001121 Dated: 30 September 2009

MODE OF PAYMENT THROUGH NON-JUDICIAL STAMP NOT APPLICABLE

Shri Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, Badi Bazar, Kalluwada Lane PO – Munger, Thana – Kotwali filed an RTI application dt.3.1.09 with the CPIO, DoP, Bhagalpur seeking information against 18 points related to various post offices and employees in those offices and also requested for various Rules. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.9.2.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. The Appellate Authority replied on 18.2.09 stating that the mode of payment through non-judicial stamp paper is not acceptable as per RTI Act and requested him to send the requisite fee through approved mode of payment as per the RTI Act. The Applicant filed a complaint dt.8.6.09 before the CIC.

The Commission upholds the decision of the Appellate Authority and advises the Complainant to file another RTI application with the requisite fee through the approved mode of payment under RTI Act. Complaint is dismissed.

CIC - DECISION NO CIC/AD/A/2009/000962 DATED 27.8.2009

PARTICULARS OF OFFICIALS PROMOTED TO GROUP 'B' CADRE ON ADHOC BASIS CAN BE SUPPLIED IF PARTICULARS ARE GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT

Shri K.B.Srivastava, Ex-Dy. Director, H.No.3/361 Vikas Nagar, Lucknow 226 022 filed an RTI application dt.13.2.08 with the CPIO, DoP, New Delhi seeking information against 4 points with respect to his promotion in P.S.S.Group B cadre. The CPIO replied on 24.3.08 stating that ad-hoc promotion is not a matter of right and ad-hoc promotion to PSS Group B cadre is done on circle level on the basis of availability of vacancy and one circle has no relation with other circle in this respect. She also enclosed the information regarding total vacancy of PS Group B officers and the date of holding DPC for the years 1995 to 2000. She also requested the Applicant to remit Rs.24/- towards supply of copies of Memos requested by him. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.24.4.08 with the Appellate Authority. On not receiving any reply, he filed a second appeal dt.30.6.08 before CIC.

The Respondent submitted to the CIC that the Applicant vide letter dt.24.4.08 addressed to DG, Department of Posts, deposited Rs.24/- towards supply of memos which were sent to him on 9.5.08 and no further communication was received by the CPIO from the Appellant after that. Only on receipt of the second appeal the Public Authority came to know that the Appellant had not received the information sent to him. The Respondent CPIO also shared with the Commission a copy of the Central Registry’s Diary showing date of dispatch of information to the Appellant. The Respondent further stated that ad-hoc promotion is done at circle level and there are 22 circles and one circle has no relation to another and in the absence of any register maintaining the details, the information could not be furnished. She further added that if the applicant requests for information about any particular employee / circle, then the same can be provided. The Appellant who was heard over the phone stated that his first appeal was not replied to by the Appellate Authority to which the Respondent CPIO replied stating that the first appeal was not received by them. The Applicant then complained that an employee of J & K circle who was junior to him has been given adhoc promotion since 1992 and has been subsequently regularized. In response, the Respondent informed the Appellant that the J&K circle being a small one, employees may get ad-hoc promotions quicker than in UP Circle.

The Commission after hearing both sides, directs the Appellant to provide name of any specific employee / circle so that information can be provided to him. The Commission accordingly directs the Appellant to provide the name/centre to the Respondent within 5 days of receipt of the order and the CPIO to provide the details to the Appellant within 10 days of receipt of details from the Appellant.

Comments. Nil.

CIC - DECISION NO CIC/AD/A/2009/000948 DATED 27.8.2009

APPLICANT : AVATAR SINGH CPIO: SR. SUPDT OF POST OFFICES, NEW DELHI SOUTH DIVISION

Information sought - Brief : Particulars of NSCs and KVPs issued in the name of the third party.

Information sought - Details : The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.28.3.08 with the CPIO, DoP, New Delhi in which he requested for information regarding NSCs and KVPs issued to Shri Sohan singh Sohan Pal or Shri Sohan Singh for the period Jan.1998 to Dec.2004 and value of NSC and KVP with their Nos. mean number of NSC and KVP and payment released on NSC and KVP with their amount at Jangpura PO New Delhi.

Action of the CPIO: The CPIO replied on 17.4.08 denying the information u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Appeal to the 1st Authority :  Not satisfied the Applicant filed an appeal dt.29.4.08 with the Appellate Authority to which the Appellate Authority replied on 29.5.08 upholding the decision of the CPIO.

Appeal to the 2nd Authority (CIC) :Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.25.8.08 before CIC and CIC’s directed the CPIO to provide the information after obtaining the no objection letter from the applicant’s wife (nominee) vide letter dt.22.1.09.

Information sought again by the applicant : Still aggrieved, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.20.2.09 stating that information in regard of NSCs purchased in the year 2005 have not been mentioned. The Appellate Authority replied on 24.3.09 stating that information asked in the appeal is an additional matter which was not sought in the original application. Aggrieved at the denial, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.6.09 before CIC.

Decision of the Bench (Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner)
The Respondent submitted that information sought by the Appellant was for the period 1998 to 2004 and that the same has been provided . He stated that in his first appeal the Appellant had requested for information about KVPs maturing in the year 2005. He stated that information could not be provided since there was a difficulty in understanding what exactly the Appellant was seeking as information about KVPs and NSCs bought in 1999 and maturing in 2005 was already provided to the Appellant . He stated that the Appellant had come to the Commission requesting for information regarding the NSC which the Applicant thinks is existing with maturity value of Rs.20000 in the year 2005. He further added that on receipt of copy of the second appeal, the matter was further looked into and it was found that there was no NSC issued or matured in the year 2005. This information was conveyed to the Appellant during the hearing. The Respondent also added that he would be willing to provide a affidavit to this effect. The Applicant also stated that he would be satisfied with the Certificate.
Comments. Hello Avatar Singh ji, Be clear about the information you required from the Government.

CIC  -   DECISION NO CIC/AD/A/2009/000942 DATED 27.8.2009

Name of the Applicant : Ms.Yamini H.Mehta CPIO Supdt of Post Offices, Junagadh Division, Junagadh 362001

Information sought : The Applicant requested for information against 7 points with respect to the Postal Department Holiday Home at Somnath. The CPIO replied on 12.9.08 furnishing point wise information. Not satisfied, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.2.1.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that the information furnished by CPIO is totally wrong and far from truth. The Appellate Authority replied on 9.1.09 requesting the Applicant to send a copy of RTI application along with the reply of CPIO and why she feels the information provided is wrong so that it can be considered and information / documents can be sent to her. As per the Appellate Authority’s request the Applicant sent a reply on 15.1.09 along with the necessary information to which the CPIO replied on 29.1.09 providing additional clarification. Not satisfied, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.23.4.09 before CIC. Information given by the CPIO : Required information given to the applicant, but the applicant alleged that the informaiton is false and made an appeal. The applicant not satisfied with the reply of appellate authory also. Decision of the Bench (Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner) The Commission held that complete information has been furnished to the Appellant and appeal disposed. Comments. Hello Madam, Why you are unable to produce evidence that the information was incorrect? However, you have wasted the time of Appellate authority and the CIC. DECISION NO CIC/AD/A/2009/000621 DATED 26.8.2009

APPLICANT : SHRI DHRUBA CHARAN NAIK, GDS MC/PKR CPIO, SSP SUNDARGARH 769001

Information sought : The remarks/comments furnished by the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Dundargarh dated 8.8.2006 and 24.10.2006 in the case of GDS candidates for selection to the cadre of PA/SA for recruitment year 1995 and 1996. Information given by the CPIO : Not supplied Decision of the Bench (Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner) 1. The information sought for by the applicant should be provided before 26.9.2009 2. Issued show cause as to why a penalty of Rs 250/- per day (Maximum Rs 25,000) should not be levied for non supplying the information within the stipulated time. The response should reach the commission by 26.9.2009 Comments. Dear SSP Sir, Don't take any thing personal sir. Requesting you to supply the informatin immediately besides explaining the reasons to the CIC for delay. DECISION NO CIC/AD/A2009/000568 DATED 26.8.2009