CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00481 dated 25-2-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri B.L. Kotriwala
Respondent: Union Public Service Commission, (UPSC)
Decision Announced 24.8.'09
FACTS
By an application of 29-10-07 Shri B.L. Kotriwala, Dy. Controller of
Mines applied to the UPSC seeking the following information:
“The UPSC may kindly inform that how this DPC dated 4.2.1998
was convened by the UPSC on the basis of said seniority list of
ACOM as on 1.10.1997, which was neither issued by the IBM
nor was circulated among the ACOMs and hence was not
finalized as is essentially required before any DPC but the said
seniority list as on 1.10.1997 was specifically created only for
the DPC dated 4.2.1998. This information may kindly be
supported with copies of all relevant records.”
To this Shri B.L. Kotriwala received a point-wise response from CPIO
Shri A.B. Tarvadi, Under Secretary, UPSC as follows:
“1. As already informed in reply to your request dated
6.9.2007 and 9.10.2007 the DPC held on 4.2.1998
considered the Seniority List as on 1.10.1997 furnished
by the Ministry of Mines. In the proforma for referring the
proposal to UPSC, duly signed by the Controller of Mines,
IBM and countersigned by Under Secretary, Ministry of
Mines, it is mentioned that the list has been circulated
among all concerned. Since these documents have
emanated from the Ministry of Miens, they may be
approached for providing copies of the same.
2. The DPC dated 4.2.1998 held by UPSC considered the
Note for DPC indicating 4 vacancies in the grade of
DCOM in the year 1997-98 as under:-
(i) 1 vacancy due to proceeding of Shri S. Tiu, DCOM
on deputation w.e.f. 30.6.1997.
(ii) 1 vacancy due to promotion of Shri S. L. Pitale,
DCOM as RCOM w.e.f. 28.8.1997.
(iii) 1 vacancy due to promotion of Shri B.B. Rao,
DCOM as RCOM w.e.f. 28.8.1997.
(iv) 1 vacancy due to up gradation of one post
earmarked for Sr. ACOM to the level of DCOM in
1997-98.
1
This was done on the basis of the Note for DPC supplied by the
Ministry of Mines. The other Note for DPC enclosed by you was
not received in UPSC.
(iii) & (iv): UPSC has not taken any action to review the
proceedings of the DPC held on 4.2.1998 as no such proposal
has been received from the Ministry of Mines.”
Not satisfied, however, Shri B.L. Kotriwala moved an appeal on 1-12-
07 pleading as follows:
“Evidently either the information provided by the CPIO, UPSC is
false or the said DPC has considered non-existent seniority list.”
Upon this Shri Dhananjay Kumar, JS, has issued the following order:
‘I have carefully gone through the concerned DPC file, the
applicant’s original application and comments of the CPIO,
UPSC. A perusal of the DPC file indicates that the seniority list
forwarded to UPSC for the said DPC is dated 1.10.1997. In the
proforma for referring the proposal to UPSC, duly signed by the
Controller of Mines, IBM & countersigned by US, Ministry of
Mines, it is mentioned that the list has been circulated among all
concerned. The information provided by the CPIO is, thus, true
and correct.
As regards, over writing and correction for the number of
vacancies in the DPC proceedings dated 4.2.1998, the CPIO
has commented that this was done during the DPC itself as
there was a typing mistake in the draft minutes. CPIO has
rightly indicated that the DPC has consdiered4 vacancies and
accordingly recommended 4 officers for promotion. There was
only one note before the DPC and therefore, there is no
question of considering 6 vacancies by adding the vacancies
indicated in the two DPC notes that are available within the
applicant, which were not supplied to UPSC.
As regards Shri K. C. P. Singh not being in the feeder grade, the
comments of the CPIO clearly indicates the reason for his
inclusion in the feeder grade. The seniority list dated 1.10.1997
furnished by the Ministry included the name of Shri K. C. P.
Singh and so he was considered by the DPC for promotion to
the grade of DCOM. As regards providing information with
reference to items (3) & (4) of the application dated 29.10.2007,
the CPIO has rightly stated that UPSC cannot convene a review
DPC on its own. The proceedings of a DPC are reviewed only
when the concerned Department make a request in this regard
and there are sufficient reasons justifying the review on the
proceedings. As no such proposal has been received from the
Ministry of Miens, UPSC did not propose to convene a Review
DPC.”
2
Appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
“The Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to direct the
CPIO, UPSC New Delhi to provide the copies of all materials
and documents available with the UPSC on which they have
informed the appellant that the DPC dated 4.2.1998 was
convened on the basis of seniority list as on 1.10.1997 duly
signed by the Controller of Mines, IBM and countersigned
by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines whereas the DPC
requisitioning department, the Indian Bureau of Mines had
informed the appellant that said seniority list as on
1.10.1997 was not issued and is not available on their
records.”
The issue before us is clear: whether or not there is a seniority list as
on 1-10-1997 submitted by Ministry of Mines to the UPSC.
The appeal was heard on 24-8-2009. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri B.L. Kotriwala.
Respondent
Shri K.S. Sampath, Under Secretary, UPSC
On the issue being put to him Shri K.S. Sampath, Under Secretary,
UPSC submitted a file to show a letter of 26/1997/M3, dated 26-12-96
received from the Ministry of Mines by the UPSC. Attached with this letter are
three pages of a seniority list at the heading of which says “As on 1-10-1997”.
Shri Sampath, however, submitted that information received from different
departments is not as per UPSC practice provided to applicant’s under the
RTI Act whose applications are instead transferred to the concerned
department, which are the source of the information sought and, therefore, the
departments with whom the subject matter is more closely connected. Upon
this Shri B.L. Kotriwala submitted copies of two letters; (i) dated 12-11-07 of
the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Nagpur in which Shri R.G. Wasnik, Head of
the office has informed Shri MK. Parasher, Regional Controller of Mines of the
IBM unequivocally as follows:
“In this connection it is intimated that no such seniority list as on
1.10.1997 appears to have been issued by the IBM in respect t
of Group ‘A’ officers and hence the information may please be
treated as Nil.”
3
And another dated 7-3-2008 received by Shri B.L. Kotriwala from CPIO,
Shri R.K. Malhotra, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Mines in which again
unequivocally, Shri Malhotra has informed Shri Kotriwal as follows:
“The DPC in its meeting held on 4.2.1998 considered the
seniority list as on 31.3.1997 and not as on 1.10.1997 as
mentioned by you.”
Copies of these letters have been taken on record. On the basis of the
above the following is ordered:
i) We understand that the UPSC not being the prime holder of the
information sought in this case has correctly referred applicant Shri Kotriwala
to the Ministry of Mines. This is also keeping in view sub Section (ii) of
Section 6 (3), which requires transfer where an application made to a public
authority requesting information “the subject matter of which is more closely
connected with the functions of another public authority”.
Normally under the RTI Act in respect to this question the CPIO, UPSC
would have been well advised to take recourse to Section 6 (3) (ii). In the
present case however, where the information is indeed held by the UPSC the
parent Ministry appears to denying its existence. UPSC will now, therefore,
provide a copy of the impugned letter together with its enclosures to
appellant Shri B.L. Kotriwala within 10 working days of the date of
receipt of this decision notice.
ii) In light of above, since the source of information held by the UPSC is
none other than the Ministry of Mines, we must conclude that CPIO Shri R.K.
Malhotra of Ministry of Mines has knowingly given incorrect and misleading
information to appellant. Shri R.K. Malhotra will, therefore, show case as to
why he should not be penalised for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under sub
Section (1) of Section 20 for knowingly giving incorrect and misleading
information. He will give us a written response by 15th September, 2009 so
as to enable us to determine what further course of action is required in
imposing a penalty under Section 20 (1). The appeal is, therefore, allowed to
the above extent
4
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
24-8-2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
24-8-2009
5