Information about ACP proposal - CIC is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent which shows sheer disregard towards their own employees - CIC: Take relevant details from appellant so that requisite information should be provided
16 Sep, 2024
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2022 seeking the following information:
My husband's ACP proposal was sent to your Principal Directorate Office, Center Command Lucknow, but it has not been approved yet. Due to which, on the basis of the Right to Information Act, I want answers to the following questions:-
Daily progeress report regarding the officials to whom my application was put up and the action taken by them.
As per the laws of the department, in how many days action was required to be taken on my application.
The names and rank of officials who did not take action on the application.
What action can be taken against the officers who do not do their work and cause harassment.
When my work would be done.
(Loose translation from the application filed in Hindi)
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.08.2022 stating as under:
The information sought by you does not conform to the definition of information as per Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. CPIO can provide information available with him. For redressal of the grievance, contact the administration office.
(Loose translation from the reply of CPIO in Hindi)
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 28.09.2022, held as under:
“After having perused all the records and after hearing the views of the nodal officer, I find that an appropriate reply has already been provisioned to the appellant by the CPIO vide RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OL-74447 dated 04 Aug 2022. Redressal of grievances, non-compliance of rules, contesting the actions of the respondent public authority and suggesting correction in the policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act I, therefore, uphold the decision of the CPIO. However, I direct CPIO to provide a copy of RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OL-74447 dated 04 Aug 2022 to the appellant once again.”
In compliance with the FAA’s Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 03.10.2022 replied as under:
“It is submitted that the FAA has upheld the decision of the CPIO, however as pe the direction of the FAA copy of the RTI Cell Letter no. A/810027/RTI/OL_74447 dated 04 August 2022 is enclosed herewith.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Brig. Tamojeet Biswas, CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Army) present in person.
During the hearing, the Registry of this Bench has tried to contact the Appellant on her mobile number (as mentioned in her second appeal) but she was not contactable.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and the order passed by the FAA. On the other hand, the Respondent apprised the Commission that the Appellant in her RTI application has not disclosed any details of her husband and details of complaint filed by her viz. place of posting of her husband, date of complaint and to whom the said complaint was addressed, etc. Therefore, in absence of such details, they are unable to provide any information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in her second appeal is aggrieved that information was not provided to her by the Respondent.
Further, the Commission is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent. On one hand, the Respondent has invoked Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act in denying the information and on the other hand, taken the shelter that the Appellant has not mentioned any details to process her request in providing information. The Respondent could have given this reply to the Appellant ab-initio, so that the Appellant can rectify/add proper details at the stage of first appeal and second appeal. It shows sheer disregard of the Respondent public authority towards their own employees.
In view of the above observations and in the interest of natural justice, the Respondent is directed to make an effort to approach the Appellant and try to take relevant details from her so that requisite information should be provided to the Appellant. The above directions of the Commission should be complied within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Pushpa Thapliyal v. Ministry of Defence, IHQ of MoD (Army), File No : CIC/DIGDE/A/2022/655427; Date of Decision : 12-01-2024