CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26-12-2022 seeking the following information:

Subject: Request for Information regarding (3rd MACP) under RTI Act 2005.

1. Photocopy of Date and Comments of DPC on note sheet, file ID 839925, NOBIBSSS/HST/2022/375 between 23.03.2012 to 26.09.2022.

2. Information regarding files Produced in front of DPC. How many files are approved and how many rejected till Date 26-09-2022.

3. Prime Conditions for grant of 3rd MACP.

4. Order copy of (Not-grant) of MACP which is applicable on official who retire after completing the service of 30 years and 10 years in the same grade.

5. Whether the case is discussed with RD WEST. If yes, then give the Date wise Details marked on note sheets between 23.03.2022 and to 26/09/2022. If no, then give the reason.

6. Submission the file on Dated 23/03/2022 and grant of MACP by Deptt on dated 26/4 whether my MACP case mas forwarded to Head Quarter. If yes, then provide the correspondence if no then give the reason for delayed the use up to 26.12.2022.”

The PIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 07-01-2023 stating as under:

“The information provided by the concerned school is enclosed.

1. Photocopy of Date & Comments of DPE note sheet of File ID 839925 (attached.)

2, 3 & 4: Not related to school.”

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13-01-2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13-02-2023, held as under:

“After going through the appeal, it is seen that applicant has not received complete information at the time of filing appeal. The DDE PIO (Zone-18) is hereby directed to provide revised point-wise reply to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005 within le days of receipt of this order.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present in person.

Respondent: Dr. Ashok Kumar, Vice Principal/ APIO, GBSSS Hospital present in person.

Written submission of the Respondent is taken on record. Respondent reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 10-04-2024, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below-

1. Mr. Pradeep Singh applicant filed an RTI application No.-640 which was received on 02/01/2023 in RTI Branch in O/o DDE West-B Which was forwarded to DDE Zone-18 on the same date.

2. Zone-18 sent this RTI to Govt Boys Sr. Sec. School, Hastsaal, New Delhi-110059 for reply and their reply was received and sent to the above mention applicant.

3. Afterwards, the applicant being not satisfied made first appeal and the FAA asked PIO/ADE West-B Directorate of Education, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018 for comments and information.

4. Further, DDE Zone-18 provided revise reply on 04/03/2023.

5. Not being satisfied the applicant has made second appeal in your prestigious commission.

Contents of revised reply dated 04-03-2023 are mentioned below for the sake of clarity –GBSSS HASTSAL (ID 1618058), NEW DELHI-110059

Subject:-MACP case in r/o Sh PARDEEP NGH (Retd.), Lect. Pol. Sc (Emp. ID-19911134)

1. The Third MACP case in r/o Sh PARDEEP DINGH (Retd.), Lect. Pol. Sc (Emp. ID-19911134) is submitted for further necessary action and approval.

2. The required Proforma and all other documents as per checklist are placed below. The file is submitted as per your order.

3. If agreed, necessary approval/order is issued.

4. Submitted pl

xxx

3 vide OM. No. F. No, 1453545/2021 - Estt. (Pay-1),dated 24.06.2021) issued by DOPT. Min. of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, 401 and the Endorsement of the same by the finance Department GNCTD of datd 15.7.2021 Grant of MACP in r/o Pradeep Singh (19911134) Ret. Lect. Pol. Science can not be allowed The Concerned Employee is retiring on 31-10-2021 & the due date of MACP falls on 01-11-2021, Moreover the file may be sent (forwarded) to MACP cell for further clearance & by observation..

xxx

Ref. pre page

5. In the matter regarding grant of 3rd MACP to Sh. Pradeep Singh(Retd.) Lect. (Emp. ID: 19911134), as per note submitted by the Nodal Officer (MACP) at prepage, "Sh. Pradeep Singh, Retd. Lecturer cannot be allowed as the concerned employee is retiring on 31.10.2021 and the due date of MACP falls on 01.11.2021. Moreover, the file may be sent (forwarded) to MACP cell for further clearance & observations".

6. In view of above, if agreed, we may send the file to the MACP Cell. Dte. Of Education, Old Sectt. for further clarification in the matter.

Xxx

DDE (MACP) HQ

As discussed with Nodal offices (west-B) file be returned to Hos as per remark to nodal officer (MACP) at page-1/N.

Submitted please…”

The Complainant stated that complete file noting, note sheet of his DPC file between 23.03.2012 to 26.09.2022 has not been provided to him till date.

Decision

The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records notes that the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act, where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent. No mala-fide is established on part of the PIO in this case.

It further appears that the Complainant during the hearing is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and has also been challenging the correctness of the information provided by the PIO. Despite this, PIO obtained the information and provided to the applicant/complainant, in the spirit of RTI Act.

Here, the Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:

"6. ….proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)

The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:

“6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.”

While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:

“20. …While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority….”

In view of the above, no further action lies in this matter.

The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Pardeep Singh v. Dy. Director of Education, CIC/DIRED/C/2023/110487; Date of Decision: 29-04-2024