Information regarding non-adjustment of his TA / DA advance - CIC: There is a dispute relating to the transaction of MRO i.e Military Receivable Order and the same cannot be redressed under the RTI Act - CIC: Available information was already provided
3 May, 2023Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information regarding non-adjustment of his TA / DA advance:
a. Provide a copy of the policy/ guidelines regarding the audit of amount deposited through Military Receivable Order (MRO)
b. Provide a copy of the policy/ guidelines for the limit of minimum and maximum days of audit of amount deposited through MRO.
c. Provide a copy of mail receiving register/incoming Dak Register, in which letter No. 1125/66999/20 SIKH/A dated 21/08/2016 along with MRO for Rs. 51,200/- has been entered.
d. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing
The appellant in his second appeal submitted that the amount of Rs 51,200/- needs to be reimbursed. He is aggrieved as the CDA had taken 4 and ½ years to inform that the MRO was not received and recovered the amount with penal interest.
The CPIO reiterated the reply dated 30.06.2021. He further submitted that the reimbursement requested is not possible due to the fact that the bank authorities stated that no such MRO was received.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 30.06.2021 replied to the appellant and enclosed a letter received from the custodian. The custodian i.e Accounts officer provided a point-wise reply. In respect of points no. (a) and (b) the CPIO replied that the detailed procedure regarding adjustment of MRO is mentioned at para 116 & Defence Accounts Code. In respect of points no. (c)(d)(e) the CPIO replied that no such documents are maintained. In respect of points no. (f) and (g) it was replied that their office has not received the duplicate copy of MRO dated 08.06.2016 for Rs 51,200/- alongwith credit scroll from the bank authorities. He further submitted that their office has made correspondence with Bank authorities for want of the same vide letter no. A/110/MRO/BankCorr dated 15.01.2020. He further stated that SBI Baramulla branch has replied vide letter no. Branch 07/2020-21-27 dated 21.12.2020 that “No such MRO was received by the branch. The stamp affixed in the MRO is forged and does not pertain to their branch and signatures affixed on MRO does not pertain to any employee at the branch”. In respect of point no. (h) the CPIO replied that the Audit section has adjusted the amount on the basis of OMRO received from the depositors. However as DMRO is not received from SBI/Local point branch the same has been called from the SBI Baramulla. However a reply received from SBI, Baramulla code no. 01477 was enclosed for information in which it was mentioned that the stamp & signature are not pertaining to the branch and may have been forged.
The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 05.07.2021 disposed of the first appeal and held that the information available with the office was rightly and timely provided and made available by the CPIO.
The Commission observed that there is a dispute relating to the transaction of MRO i.e Military Receivable Order and the same cannot be redressed under the RTI Act. As available information was already provided, no action lies.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission could not find any ground to provide any relief to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Madraboina Jitendra Yadav v. O/o Pr. Controller of Def. Accounts (Officers), File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2022/109277; 06/04/2023