CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00702 dated 28-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Tejpal Solanki
Respondent: Central Public Works Dep't (CPWD)
FACTS
By an application of 26-12-06 Shri Tejpal Solanki of Village Shahbad,
Mohammadpur, New Delhi, applied to the CPIO, CPWD seeking the following
information:
1. “Please intimate the number of sanctioned posts of Wiremen as
on 1998 in the Department.
2. Please intimate the number and names of Wiremen who have
retired from 1998 to 2004, and why vacant posts have not been
filled up.
3. (i) Shri Surinder Singh son of Shri Kapur Singh DLYCED-I Delhi
(ii) Shri Jagbir Singh, s/o Shri Ramkishan, SICHED Delhi
(iii) Shri Ram Kumar s/o Shri Lakshman Singh, PWDED VII,
Delhi
4. Whether the promotion of Wiremen was done as per rules or not.
The seniority of the applicant is 24-9-92 whereas above
mentioned Wiremen’s seniority as per DOPT was 7-5-97.
5. In spite of being the senior the applicant was not promoted, then
why the above three Wiremen were promoted where the
departmental enquiry was done in respect of them. If so, then
given the name, designation and address of the Investigating
Officer.
6. What action has been taken by the Investigating officer? If any
official is found guilty as per inquiry that what action has been
taken against them, please give details.
7. When the applicant will be promoted as Wiremen.
8. Whether those employees were holding Competency Certificate-
I as on 1998 that have been promoted. If that is the case, give
the name and addresses of those employees. If they were not
holding such certificates then why they were promoted before
me.
1
9. As per Departmental Order dated 27.9.2004 all the Executive
Engineer’s were directed to prepare a panel for those posts.
Whether the panel was constituted if not then why?”
To this he seems to have received a response on 1-2-07 through letter
of APIO, office of DDG (W) stating that the matter pertained to PWD and
hence refunding the fees received through IPO. We have come to this
conclusion on a response to the application because in his first appeal to the
JS, MoUD Shri Tejpal has referred to a response, in which he has found that,
“the information which was provided was incomplete, misleading and
irresponsible.”
This appeal was transferred to the DG (Works) by Public Information
Cell of MOUD dated 26-2-07, after which a response point-wise was sent to
the appellant on 18-4-07 by SE (E) as below:
“I. There were 84 sanctioned posts of Electrician in 1998 (21
of D. R. Quota and 63 of Promotional Quota). Vide CE
(E)-I, CPWD, Letter No. 3 (22)/CE (E)-I/III-14 dated
14.12.98 and even No. 134-38 dated 11.2.99, 10% cut in
posts of electrician was made. Hence sanctioned
strength was reduced to 79 (20 in Direct Quota and 59 in
Promotional Quota).
II. 19. Nos. Electrician retired between 1998-2004,
details are as under: –
1. Sh Ran Singh, S/o Sh Prabhu Ram on 30.6.1999.
2. Sh. Murari Lal, S/o Bihari Lal on 30.6.1999.
3. Sh. Pyare Singh, S/o Sadhu Singh on 30.6.1999.
4. Sh. Krishan Lal, S/o Sh. Ratanlal on 31.7.1999.
5. Sh. Om Prakash, S/o Uday Singh on 30.11.1999.
6. Sh. Chandu Lal, S/o Sh. Bachi Ram on 31.01.2000.
7. Sh. Sudesh Pal, S/o G. L. Sabharwal on 29.2.2000.
8. Sh. Ram Das, S/o Sh Lalu Singh on 31.5.2000.
9. Sh. Shiv Kumar Saini, S/o Sh. Sardarilal on 30.9.2000.
10. Sh. Ramji Dubey, S/o Sh. S. D. Dubey on 31.01.2002.
11. Sh. Satish Prakash, S/o Sh. Ram Govind on 31.03.2002.
12. Sh. Arjun Dev, S/o Sh. Nan Lal on 30.6.2002.
13. Sh. Janak Raj, S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh on 30.11.2002.
14. Sh. Baldev Singh, S/o Sh. Gyan Singh on 30.6.2003.
15. Sh. Wachaspati, S/o Sh. Ganga Dutt on 30.9.2003.
16. Sh. M. K. Sharma, S/o Sh. Sohan Lal on 31.03.2004.
17. Sh. Ratan Kumar, S/o Sh. Gyani Ram on 31.03.2004.
18. Sh. Sher Singh, S/o Sh. Sumer Singh on 30.11.2004.
19. Sh. Ramesh Chopra, S/o Sh. D. N. Chopra on 31.12.2004.
2
These posts were filled up on promotion only after 2.4.2004,
as before that Hon’ble CAT had directed that till OA No.
1620/2000 is disposed off, no promotions should be made.
III. These Wiremen were promoted to the post of
Electrician on the basis of information submitted by
concerned Division Offices, wherein they were
promoted on the basis of seniority of Assistant
Wiremen instead of Wireman. As soon as the above
error was noticed, they were reverted to the post of
Wireman vide this office order dated 29.10.2004.
These workers thereafter approached the Hon’ble CAT
in OA No. 2674/2004 and their reversion is under stay.
Seniority of Shri Tejpal was antedated only vide this
office order dated 10.11.2005 from 09/07/1993 to
24.9.1992.
IV. As explained in Para II, these Wiremen were promoted
on the basis of wrong information and subsequently
they were reverted. No Departmental Inquiry in this
regard was conducted.
V. No Departmental Inquiry was/ has been conducted in this
regard.
VI. At present against the 59 sanctioned posts of Electrician
in Promotion Quota (47-Gen, 8SC, 4-ST), 46 General
electricians are working. Shri Tejpal belongs to General
category. As and when vacancy will be available in
General category, Shri Tejpal will be promoted as per his
seniority.
VII. The workers who have been promoted have been
promoted after verifying all their documents.
VIII. Particulars were called from concerned Division Offices
for preparation of Panel. The requisite particulars were
not received by the required time. Thereafter new result
was declared.”
Appellant’s prayer before us is as below:
“I request you to take some steps in this regard according
to RTI Act 2005 and I should also call on the fixed date. I
also want to request you to fix some penalty because of not
giving any clear information in this regards.”
We have received a detailed response to our appeal notice from Shri
S.B. Singh ADG (NR) dated 5-8-08, which concludes as follows:
3
“The information furnished to the applicant was appropriate and
clear and the delay has occurred for the applicant’s not
approaching the appropriate PIO/ Appellate Authority, i.e. SE,
Coord Circle (Elect.) & ADG (NR). As such, it is again submitted
that no penalty be imposed on the departmental officials.”
The appeal was heard on 6-82008. The following are present.
Appellants
Shri Tejpal Solanki.
Shri Desraj.
Respondents
Shri S. P. Shakarwal, SE (E), Coord.
Shri Ratan Gaur, UDC.
Shri S. P. Singh, ADG (NR).
Since it was not clear to us as to whether a response had at all been
received to the original application and if so, what was the reference made in
his first appeal to “incomplete and misleading information” parties were asked
to clarify this response. Neither party was able to do so. We have, therefore,
put aside the question of examining the response to the first appeal and
proceeded to examine the response to the first appeal point-wise. Appellant
Shri Tejpal submitted that the incorrect information supplied to him was with
regard to question Nos. 4 and 5. The questions and the answers provided are
as follows:
S. Question Answer
No.
4. In spite of being the senior the As explained in Para II,
applicant was not promoted, these Wiremen were
then why the above three promoted on the basis of
Wiremen were promoted where wrong information and
the departmental enquiry was subsequently they were
done in respect of them. If so, reverted. No
then given the name, Departmental Inquiry in
designation and address of the this regard was
Investigating Officer. conducted.
5. What action has been taken No Departmental Inquiry
by the Investigating officer? was/ has been
If any official is found guilty conducted in this regard.
as per inquiry that what
action has been taken
against them, please give
details.
4
Shri Des Raj, assisting appellant, submitted that the reply to
question No.5 was incomplete because as found from the reply to question
No.4 despite Shri Tejpal having been assured that the promotion will be as
per seniority, an officer junior to him has been promoted and no departmental
enquiry conducted against that official though there were charges against him,
therefore, he wanted to know the action taken against the person making the
promotion. However, as explained to Shri Tejpal this was not the question
asked in the original RTI request or even in first appeal. It is open to him to
raise this question through afresh application u/s 6 of the RTI Act, 2005.
DECISION NOTICE
We find that the information sought by appellant has been provided
point-wise in the letter of SC (E) of 18-4-07. If as appellant alleges he has
found from the information received evidence of injustice to him or breach of
rules he is free to move the appropriate authorities in getting these redressed.
The purpose of exercising his right to information has already been met and
there is no further cause of action for this Commission.
Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Announced in the hearing. Notice of
this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
6-8-2008
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
6-8-2008
5