Mr.Subhash Chander vs Department Of Revenue on 29 October, 2010

                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                          .....

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000701
Dated, the 29  October, 2010.

                                                                     th




 Appellant         : Shri Subhash Chander 


 Respondent        : Department of Revenue
 s

This   matter   came   up   for   hearing   on   19.10.2010   pursuant   to 
Commission’s   notice   dated   29.09.2010.     Both   parties   were   absent. 
Matter is accordingly decided based on the documents submitted by the 
appellant along with his second­appeal petition.

2. Through   his   RTI­application   dated   06.02.2010,   appellant   raised 
four queries to be answered by the Deputy Secretary, AD­IV, Government 
of   India,   Ministry   of  Finance,   Department   of   Revenue.     He  received   a 
reply   from   the   CPIO,   Shri   K.K.   Khattar,   Under   Secretary   dated 
04.03.2010 in respect of his queries at Sl.Nos.III and IV.   CPIO further 
informed   him   that   as   the   other   queries   in   his   application   related   to 
Sections   AD­IV,   AD­IIB   and   AD­IIIB,   these   where   transferred   to   those 
Sections to furnish replies to the appellant.

3. When this matter was taken in first­appeal, Appellate Authority, in 
his   order   dated   19.04.2010,   gave   directions   to   the   CPIO   in   regard   to 
items at Sl.Nos.III and IV in appellant’s RTI­application, i.e. to approach 
DOPT for the information relating to item III and to make renewed search 
for information requested through appellant’s point at IV.

4. Following   Appellate   Authority’s   order,   CPIO   provided   to   the 
appellant another reply on 20.05.2010.  Appellant was informed that the 

CIC_AT_A_2010_000701_M_45062.doc 
Page 1 of 2
file through which an earlier letter dated 09.05.1991 was issued was not 
traceable, possibly weeded­out and destroyed.

5. Appellant,   in   his   second­appeal,   had   stated   that   the   information 
CPIO claims  to have been destroyed was actually lying with the public 
authority   and   the   CPIO   was   willfully   suppressing   it.     He   has   further 
pointed out that the DOPT instructions were not fully followed in working­
out seniority of employees at his level.  Junior officers were promoted as 
Inspectors   earlier   than   seniors,   which,   appellant   believes,   was   against 
fundamental rights and was unconstitutional.

6. I find from  what  appellant  has  stated  in his second­appeal  he is 
attempting   to   engage   the   public   authority   in   a   debate   about   DOPT 
instructions   about   promotions   and   their   compliance   by   the   public 
authority.  RTI provides no scope for such engagements.

7. I   have   no   reason   to   believe   that   CPIO   was   hiding   any   facts   in 
stating that files referred to by the appellant were untraceable, possibly 
destroyed.     As   these   were   old   files   and,   given   the   weeding­out   and 
destruction   schedules,   there   was   a   strong   probability   that   these   have 
been put to the shredder.

8. In view of the above, I find no infirmity  in the reply of the CPIO, 
which is upheld.

9. Appeal closed.

10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties. 

( A.N. TIWARI )
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

CIC_AT_A_2010_000701_M_45062.doc 
Page 2 of 2