CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01582 dated 21.8.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri R. K. Gupta
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Decision announced: 27.1.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 23.4.08 Shri R. K. Gupta of Sector 7B, Chandigarh
applied to the CPIO Dy. Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, seeking
the following information:
“1. The prescribed criteria/norms devised by the Commission or by the
DOPT for deployment of staff for inspection/invigilation duties.2. Whether the staff deployed for inspection / invigilation duties are
sponsored by their respective Officers?3. A list of examinations conducted by the Staff Selection
Commission, Chandigarh w.e.f. 1.1.2007 to 30.3.2008 with details
about examination Centres, persons deployed for Inspection /
Invigilation duties etc. in the following format:S. Name / Name of Office where Residential No. Place the inspecting addresses & of deployed Officer/Invigilator is telephone Centre Inspecting employed with ref. No. of Officer / No. & date of letter Inspecting invigilator sponsoring their Officer In deployment charge.To this, Shri R. K. Gupta received an interim response of 30.4.08 from
Shri Naveen Sehgal, Dy. Regional Director informing Shri Gupta as follows:“With reference to your letter cited under reference, it is intimated
that we have referred to our Headquarters in this regard. As and
when information is received, the same would be communicated to
you.”Together with this letter, there is also a copy of a letter from Shri V. K.
Aggarwal, Under Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Delhi, transferring an
1
earlier application from Shri Sh. Sharma and Shri Gupta addressed to the Delhi
Office to SSC (NWR) Chandigarh.
On not receiving any further information, Shri R. K. Gupta then sent
reminder to Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Under Secretary, SSC dated 17.6.08 informing
him that he has received no reply. He then received in response, a letter of
25.6.08 from CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal, US, SSC, Delhi informing him as follows:
“So far as your request for providing information is concerned, it is
informed that we have already sought comments from our Sub
Regional Office, Chandigarh and as soon as the same are
received, the required information will be sent to you.”
On still not receiving any further information, Shri R. K. Gupta had moved
an appeal before Appellate Authority Ms. Gayatri Sharma, D.S., SSC, Delhi
complaining of what he terms “defiance and violation of the RTI Act, 2005 as
under the Act a certain time frame has been set out for providing the
information”.
Appellant Shri R. K. Gupta’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as
below:
“Even after more than a month of filing appeal, neither my
application was acknowledged nor the required information was
supplied to me.
This is sheer callousness, open defiance and violation of the RTI
Act, 2005.
It is quite distressing that the required information has not so far
been supplied to me for more than four months’ period forcing me
to send a number of reminders/appeals.
This has caused me a lot of mental agony. I have also incurred
unavoidable expenditure on all such correspondences by way of
photo copying, postage etc.I, therefore, request the CIC to kindly intervene in the matter and
have the required information supplied to me without any further
delay. I also plead that all such Government Officials who have2
been involved may be taken to task and penalized for dereliction to
duty under the Act.”
The issues before us clearly, therefore, are
(1) who holds the information sought by appellant Shri R. K. Gupta;
the SSC Delhi or the SSC Chandigarh?
(2) Because of failure of a definitive reply by either CPIO Delhi or
Chandigarh, which is the CPIO who has rendered himself liable
for penalty.
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 27.1.2010. The following
are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Chandigarh
Shri R. K. Gupta
Respondents
at NIC Studio, Chandigarh.
Shri Brar, A.D., SSC
at CIC chambers, New Delhi
Shri P. S. Ahuja, Section Officer
Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Consultant
The videoconference was abruptly interrupted by Internet failure, so the
balance of the hearing was an audio hearing by telephone.
Respondent Shri P. S. Ahuja, Section Officer, SSC Delhi submitted that on
receipt of Shri R. K. Gupta’s appeal in the SSC Delhi and because the
information sought could only be held by the Regional Office, Appellate Authority,
Ms. Gayatri Sharma, DS through her letter of 11.9.08 sought the information from
Shri Naveen Sehgal, Dy. Regional Director, SSC, NWR, Chandigarh as follows:
“As no reply has been furnished to the applicant, he has made an
appeal under the RTI Act in the month of July, 2008. As Appellate
Authority, I cannot take a view in the matter until and unless I have
seen all the facts of the case. In case you have sent a reply to the
applicant, the same may please be sent to me by return FAX or
Emailed tome. If not, reply may be furnished to him, otherwise all
facts may be sent to me within two days as deadline of RTI Act
have already been crossed.”
3
Subsequently, by a letter of 13.10.08 Ms. Gayatri Sharma has provided to
appellant Shri R. K. Gupta the following information:
“1. a) Criteria for Invigilator:
Persons engaged as invigilators should be reliable and
trustworthy. While selecting retired Govt. Servants, care
should be taken to see that they are active and energetic
and would be in a position to be on their feet during the
entire duration of the examination.
b) Criteria for deploying of Inspecting Officers:
The Regional Directors / Dy. Regional Directors are
authorized to appoint Inspecting Officers for inspecting each
of the centre in their region.
2. Not necessarily.
3. A list of exam conducted from 1.1.2007 to 3.3.08 is attached
as Annexure 1. A list of venues is given in Annexure-II. The
remaining information is not compiled in the Commission.
This correspondence having been subsequent to the second appeal
before us does not find place in the 2nd appeal by appellant Shri R. K. Gupta,
before this Commission. Appellant Shri R. K. Gupta agreed that he has indeed
received the orders of 13.10.08 and that he has not made any appeal against the
order received because his appeal was in any case pending before this
Commission. Representative of the SSC, Chandigarh Shri Brar was not in a
position to submit an explanation for the delay in responding to the appeal.
DECISION NOTICE
On Issue No. 1, it is now clear that the SSC Chandigarh held the
information sought by appellant Shri R. K. Gupta. However, because Shri Gupta
is not satisfied with the information now received through the orders of Appellate
Authority Ms. Gayatri Sharma in her letter of 13.10.08, he is free to move a fresh
second appeal before us, since the appeal already before us does not challenge
the information received. However, a considerable time has been spent in
processing this appeal before this Commission. Therefore, in case Shri RK
4
Gupta were to move a fresh second appeal against the information now supplied
any infringement of the time limit of Sec. 19(3) will stand condoned.
Issue No. 2: In light of the above, it is also now clear that CPIO Shri
Naveen Sehgal, Dy. Regional Director, SSC, Chandigarh has rendered himself
liable for a penalty of Rs. 250/- a day from the date when the information became
due i.e. 23.5.08 to the date when it was actually supplied, which is 31.10.08
reaching the maximum limit of Rs. 25,000/-. Shri Naveen Sehgal will, therefore,
show cause as to why the above penalty should not be imposed upon him. He
may do this in writing through a letter addressed to Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar,
Jt. Registrar latest by 15th February, 2010, failing which the Commission will
take further measures in view of Sec 20(1) of the Act.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
27.1.2010
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
27.1.2010
5