CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001237
Appellant - Shri Hargovind Arora.
Public Authority - C.B.D.T..
(through : Ms. Rashmita Jha, Deputy
Secretary(V&L Section) and Shri Jit
Mal, Under Secretary).
Date of hearing - 23.02.2010
Date of decision - 23.02.2010
Facts
:-
The matter, in short, is that pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, certain
penalties were imposed on the appellant. In this connection, vide his RTI application
dated 5.7.2009, he had sought the following information from the CPIO :-
“Please inform u/s 6 of the RTI Act as to under what circumstances and for
what reasons my gratuity has been forfeited in view of the fact that the
U.P.S.C had not advised for doing so. Please also allow me inspection of the
entire related records for one hour.”
2, This was responded to by CPIO vide letter dated 15.7.2009 wherein the
appellant was asked to visit his office for carrying out inspection of the file. The
appellant, in-fact, carried out the inspection on 23.7.2009 and deposited fee of Rs.
38/- against which he was supplied 17 pages of documents.
3. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant had filed first appeal
vide letter dated 14.8.2009. The first appeal was disposed of by Ms. Rashmita
Jha(AA) vide order dated 15.9.2009 wherein it was decided to provide requisite
information to the appellant afresh within a week’s time. It is also noticed that
pursuant thereto, certain information was provided to the appellant and a note dated
15.9.2009 in the hand of the appellant is available in the CBDT file.
4. The present appeal is directed against the orders of CPIO & AA.
5. Heard on 23.02.2010. Appellant present. The Public Authority is
represented by the officers named above. The principal submission of the appellant
is that the Union Public Service Commission had advised forfeiture of his pension
only but in addition to the pension, the competent authority has also forfeited his
gratuity. He, therefore, wants to know the reasons for forfeiture of gratuity.
6. To this, Ms Jha would respond that the file in this respect is being maintained
in the office of DG IT(Vigilance) and it is for his office to respond to the appellant’s
query. She would also submit that she had informed the appellant accordingly vide
her letter dated 5.10.2009 and had also marked a copy of this letter to CPIO in the
office of the DG IT(Vigilance). She also produces a copy of her letter before this
Commission.
7. The crux of the matter is that the CPIO in the office of DG IT(Vigilance),
New Delhi, has slept over the matter and provided no information whatsoever to the
appellant. This is a serious matter. Notice may be issued to Shri L.K.S. Dahiya,
CPIO in the office of DG IT(Vigilance), New Delhi, to appear before the
Commission on 16.03.2010 at 1110 hrs alongwith the relevant records concerning
the departmental proceedings against the appellant.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
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.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Shri L.K.S. Dahiya,
CPIO, office of DG, IT(Vigilance), CBDT,
Department of revenue, North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Shri Hargovind Arora,
D-16-B, 1st Floor, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi.