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

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

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

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

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