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