Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000347
Name of Appellant : Sh. Ram Narayan
Name of Respondent : M/o Home Affairs
ORDER
Sh. Ram Narayan, the Appellant, had filed an application dated 3.10.08, seeking
information on circumstances under which Sh. Govind Ram, has been promoted to
DANICS. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, the CPIO / Director (Services), M/o Home Affairs,
replied to the Appellant vide his letter dated 23.10.2008. Aggrieved with the reply the
Appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Smt. B. Bhamathi,
the FAA / Jt. Secretary (UT), M/o Home Affairs, who decided the matter vide order
dated 29.12.2008. The FAA, has held as follows:-
“2. The undersigned has gone through your appeal and found that you have sought
information on following points:-
1. How come and under what circumstances Sh. Govind Ram, the then
Tehsildar, Ferragunj was promoted to the DANICS specifically during the
pendency of the major penalty proceedings recommended by the CBI and
in utter violations of the High Court order dated 5th January, 1995.
2. Certified copy of the noting and correspondence side of the file including
the recommendation made in respect of Sh. Govind Ram, the then
Tehsildar for promotion to DANICS by the A & N Administration.
3. Whether an employee can be promoted during the pendency of major
penalty proceedings and if so under what rule / policy or guidelines, and
if not then please inform why aforesaid promotion was granted to Sh.
Govind Ram during the pendency of major penalty proceedings.
4. The reason for not adhering to model guidelines issued by CVC for
competition (appellant intends to say ‘completion’) of major penalty
proceedings in the aforesaid case specifically when order dated 8th June,
1998 passed in Revenue case No. 4/95 and the appeal disposed of by the
order dated 19th June, 2003 passed in RC. No. 223/95(DC) categorically
held Sh. Govind Ram, the then Tehsildar Ferrargunj guilty of misconduct.
3. As regards the point 2.1 above, Sh. Govind Ram was considered for appointment
in the Entry Grade of DANICS by the DPC in its meeting held on 20th August, 2004
against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2001 to 2004, and was assessed ‘fit’. Later,
he was appointed to the Entry Grade of DANICS by this ministry’s Notification dated 7th
October, 2004. At the time of his promotion, he was clear from vigilance angle. Hence,
the CPIO has furnished the correct information to you.”
4. As regards the point 2.2 above, by applying doctrine of severability, the minutes
of DPC held on 20th August, 2004 is sent herewith. However, as per the file-notings-
related-policy of the DOP&T as contained in its O.M. No. 10/1/2008-IR, dated 10th April
2008, copy of note sheets may not be provided to you.
5. As regards the point 2.3 above, the CPIO rightly informed you that the extant
rules / instructions in this regard are available in the public domain, such as, website of
the DoP&T, Swamy’s manual. Also, as stated above, at the time of promotion Shri
Govind Ram was clear from vigilance angle.
6. As regards the point 2.4 above, Public Authority under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information or to solve
the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
Only such information, which already exists with the public authority, can be provided
and in the instant case the existing information has already been furnished to you by the
CPIO.
7. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Aggrieved with the response the Appellant has filed the present appeal before the
Commission.
The matter was heard on 20.01.2010.
The Appellant was not present.
Sh. Ashwini Kumar, Director and Sh. J. K. Singh, D.O. represented the
Respondent.
After hearing the Respondents and on perusal of the relevant documents on file
the Commission finds that the requisite information has been provided to point no. 1 of
the RTI application by the First Appellate authority. Information has partly been
provided to point no. 2 of the RTI application. The FAA has denied file notings in view
of the file-notings-related, policy of the DOP&T. Since, the file-notings-related-policy
O.M. of the DOP&T has been set aside by the Commission, file notings are to be
provided to the Appellant since no other exemption under the RTI Act has been sought.
In respect of point number 3 of the RTI application the Commission directs the
Respondent to provide the relevant provisions in the rules / instructions to the Appellant
or at least indicate the relevant rules and instructions. As regards point no. 4 of the RTI
application reasons if recorded on file, are to be provided to the Appellant.
With these observation / directions the matter is disposed off on the part of the
Commission. The directions of the Commission are to be complied within 15 days of
receipt of the Commission’s order. Grievance, if any, of the Appellant cannot be
addressed under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. If the Appellant so desires he can
file a complaint before the Competent Authority in this regard.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
12.05.2010