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
