CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00020 dated 15.1.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rajendar Singh
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation. (CBI)
ORDER
By our Decision Notice dated 27.11.07, we had directed as follows:
“Shri Ashwani Kumar, SP HQ and CPIO will, therefore, enquire into
the reasons for this delay, identify the errant officials, obtain their
explanations and submit the documents to this Commission within
15 working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice. In the
alternative, the errant officials may appear before this Commission
on 24.12.2007 at 10.30 a.m. together with the necessary
documents to Show Cause why they should not be held liable for
penalty of Rs.25, 000/- u/s 20(1).”
Accordingly, we have received written submission dated 20.12.07 in this
regard from Shri Ashwani Kumar, SP CBI HQ. He has submitted that the original
application dated 2.8.06 “was received from Shri Rajender Singh containing inter
alia Q. No. 3 which reads as follows.
“Vide CBI ID Note No. DP Pers. I/2006/3075/3/23/98 dated
30.8.2006, Admn. Officer (Pers.) intimated SP (HQ)/ CBI & CPIO
that Q. No. 3 pertains to Dep’t. Of Personnel & Training, Govt. of
India, New Delhi. He also requested that Shri Rajendra Singh may
be advised to approach the Disciplinary Authority through proper
channel for seeking the desired information. The same was sent to
Shri Rajender Singh on 30.8.2006 (copy enclosed).
This point was also raised by Shri Rajender Singh, appellant in his
1st appeal dated 15.9.2006 before DD (A) & 1st Appellate Authority.
The 1st Appellate Authority, while deciding the 1st Appeal of Shri
Rajendra Singh, vide his decision had informed him vide Para 3 of
CBI ID No. 94/10/DD(A)/RTI/Appeal/2006 dated 11.10.2006 (copy
enclosed) that a reply has been sent vide CBI ID No. DPSPH
2006/145/7/RI Act/2005-SPHQ dated 30.8.2006 by SP (HQ)/ CBI,
enclosing there with a copy of CBI ID No.
DPPers.I/2006/3075/3/23/98 dated 30.8.2006 of AO (P)/CBI1
wherein Shri Rajender Singh was advised to approach the
Disciplinary Authority for obtaining the information sought by him as
it was held by DP&T and not by the CBI.”
He has gone on to submit that his Department is not aware whether Shri
Rajender Singh, Appellant had approached the DOPT in obtaining the required
information and learnt this only on receiving the notice of appeal before the
Commission. Point No. 3 was then transferred to CPIO, DoPT by SP HQ. Shri
Ashwani Kumar has, therefore, held that the delay in response was for the above
reasons and no official can be held responsible for this.
Failure in this case had occurred as a result of not transferring the matter
concerning DoPT to that public authority within five days of receipt of application
as is mandated u/s 6(3)(i). The CBI squarely failed in bringing this about but
instead asked appellant Shri Rajender Singh to make a separate application to
DoPT. Although this failure cannot be construed to be a violation of sec. 7(1),
which will invite penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, the CBI is cautioned to ensure
close adherence to the letter of the law with regard to disposal of
applications mandated both u/s 6 and sec. 7. With these observations, the
appeal is now closed. Announced.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15.7.2008
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
15.7.2008
2