Central Information Commission
CIC/MA/A/2008/00413/AD
Dated October 22, 2008
Name of the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Kumar,
A-12, Chander Vihar,
I.P. Extn. Delhi-110092
Name of Public Authority :Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
O/o. CGMT, BSNL U.P. (W) Circle
T.E. Building, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut (U.P.)
Background
1. The RTI request was filed on 18.03.08. The Appellant requested for
certified copies of the following :-
(i) “Name of the Records” in which “Recordable Warning” is to be entered.
(ii) Currency period of “Recordable Warning”.
(iii) Currency period of penalty of ‘censure’ under Rule 35 of BSNL COA Rules
2006.
(iv) Effect of “Recordable Warning” on promotion and/or time bound up
gradation of the employee. On not receiving a reply from CPIO, the
Appellant filed his first appeal on 21.05.08. He reiterated his request for the
information and complained that even after two months he had not
received a reply from the CPIO. The Appellate Authority, in his Order of
16.09.08, provided some answers. The Meanwhile, the Appellant filed the
second appeal before the CIC on 18.08.08. He stated that non-receipt of
reply from CPIO is to be considered denial of supply of information.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled
the hearing for October 16, 2008.
3. The Appellant was absent on the day of hearing.
4. Mr. Shaameem Akhtar, CPIO &GM (D&A), represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The CPIO submitted that the he and the Appellate Authority did not reply
within the time period prescribed by the Act since they were busy trying to
collect information. The CPIO showed various letters written to different
Depts. & their replies to prove his point.
6. The Commission directs the PIO to provide information against all the 4
points given in the RTI request within 15 days of receipt of this Order.
7. The Commission has noted that neither the CPIO nor the Appellate
Authority bothered to reply to respondents on time. However, in view of
the different letters written to various Departments asking for information
and of follow-up action taken, The Commission has taken a lenient view in
this case and has decided not to impose penalty on the CPIO for not
replying to the request. The Commission, however, urges the CPIO and the
Appellate Authority to be more conscious of the responsibility placed upon
them and of the provisions of Section 7 of the RTI Act.
8. The case is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Shri Manoj Kumar, A-12, Chander Vihar, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110 092.
2. Mr. Shameem, CPIO-RTI O/o General Manage GM (D&A), O/o CGMT,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (U.P.) (West) Circle T.E. Building, Shastri
Nagar, Meerut (U.P.)
3. The Appellate Authority, RTI, RTI O/o Chief General Manager Telephones
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (U.P.) (West) Circle T.E. Building, Shastri
Nagar, Meerut (U.P.)
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC