CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00917
Dated, the 27th November, 2008.
Appellant : Mr.Tariq Ahmad Koul
Respondents : Comptroller and Auditor General of India
This second-appeal was taken up for hearing on 26.11.2008 in the
presence of both parties.
2. The appellant, through his RTI-application dated 24.09.2007, requested
disclosure of answer scripts in respect of “précis & Draft paper” in the SOG
Examination Part-II held in March, 2006 and December, 006 “Both Sessions”.
CPIO, through his interim reply dated 05.10.2007, informed appellant to
resubmit his application along with a fresh draft for Rs.10/- towards fee as the
original draft submitted by the appellant did not bear correct address. Appellant
was advised to take out a fresh Demand Draft in favour of PAO, AG (Audit),
Delhi. Accordingly, appellant submitted his application enclosed with the new
draft for Rs.10/- on 10.10.2007. He received the reply from the CPIO dated
23.10.2007 declining to disclose the information as such disclosure was likely to
“make the system unworkable in practice”. Appellate Authority, in his order
dated 13.12.2007, upheld the decision of the CPIO.
3. The appellant thereafter filed his second-appeal before the Commission on
03.07.2008.
4. The respondents stated during the hearing that as per the retention
schedule, the answer sheets requested for disclosure by the appellant, were
destroyed in October 2007. The respondents’ representative pointed out that the
CPIO’s office had to handle the RTI-application of the appellant independently
and there was no communication between the CPIO’s office and the holder-of-
the-information. The Examination Wing, therefore, had gone ahead with the
destruction of the answer sheets as they were unaware that an RTI-application in
the same matter was pending.
5. The appellant stated that he had suffered grave detriment on account of
the fact that he had submitted his RTI-application “two months in advance”,
meaning thereby two months before the alleged destruction of the answer sheets
in October, 2007 by the examination wing of the public authority, and with no
concern for his rights under the RTI Act, not only the CPIO furnished to him a
Page 1 of 2
wholly indefensible reply, but failed to ensure that the requested information was
not destroyed till a decision in the matter was taken under the RTI Act.
6. In consideration of the facts in this case, it is noted that it is now an
established fact that the answer scripts requested by the appellant had been
destroyed. There is no way now that these could be retrieved or resurrected. As
such, it is not possible to provide this information to the appellant.
7. However, the Commission cannot overlook the fact that the decision taken
by the Appellate Authority as well as the CPIO not to provide this information to
the appellant was indefensible in law and in the light of previous decisions of the
Commission in Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Lok Sabha Secretariat,
Delhi Jal Board, Diesel Loco Workshop and C.B.S.E.;Appeal Nos.
CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394; CIC/OK/A/2006/00266; 00058; 00066 &
00315; Date of Decision: 23.4.2007, where it was held that answer sheets in
departmental examinations ought to be disclosed to the applicants. In spite of
such clear decision of the Commission, the respondents went ahead and took an
entirely contrary position. It was this mistake of the respondents which caused
the lapse of time which resulted in the destruction of the records ⎯ the answer
scripts requested by the appellant. There is no doubt, therefore, that there is
enough evidence that appellant has suffered avoidable detriment on account of
the actions of the respondents.
8. It is, therefore, directed that notice may issue to the head of the public
authority, viz. the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in this case as well
as to the Appellate Authority and the CPIO as to why a compensation of
Rs.10,000/- should not be awarded to the appellant under Section 19(8)(b) of the
RTI Act for the detriment which the appellant has been forced to suffer.
Returnable in three weeks.
9. Appeal disposed of accordingly. Complaint proceedings to continue.
10. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2