CIC: Respondent is warned to ensure in future that RTI Applications are not transferred blindly - CIC took strong exception to the intemperate language & disparaging phrases used by the Appellant in the contents of Second Appeal as well as RTI Application
The Appellant sought to know status of his application dated 26.10.2015 addressed to the Director, DoPT and reason as to why his application dated 30.01.2016 has not been replied by CPIO even after the lapse of 45 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent (1): Mahender Pal Singh, SO & Rep. of CPIO and Inder Pal, ASO, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi present in person. Respondent (2): Not present. Respondent (3): Ms Anu Arora, AFA (DAD-Coord) & CPIO, Rajesh Kalia, SO(DADCoord) and Pankaj Singh, IFA(CC) & CPIO, M/o Defence, Defence Finance, South Block, New Delhi present in person.
Respondent No.1 submitted that it was learnt at the FAA order stage that their office has inadvertently transferred the RTI Application to other Respondent(s) as the information sought pertained to their office only. He further submitted in compliance of the FAA order dated 14.07.2016, appropriate status of action taken on the letter under reference was intimated to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.08.2016.
Commission takes grave exception to the inadvertence of Respondent No.1 as it has caused wastage of time and resources of the other Respondents. Respondent No.1 is warned to ensure in future that RTI Applications are not transferred blindly. As regards the reply provided on 09.08.2016, Commission finds no scope of intervention.
Commission also takes very strong exception of the intemperate language and disparaging phrases used by the Appellant in the contents of Second Appeal as well as RTI Application. RTI Act certainly does not provide for vilifying public authorities in such explicit manner by means of filing a RTI Application. Appellant is cautioned for future. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Citation: Arjun Verma v. CPIO, M/o Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training; M/o Defence, and SO(DAO/Coordination)/CPIO M/o Defence in File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2017/130381/SD, Date of Decision : 08/01/2019