Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000141
Dated August 27, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Arun Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Information & Broadcasting
Adjunct to the captioned CIC Order dated 5.4.10
Background
1. The decision in the captioned case is reproduced below:
‘5. The Respondent submitted that there are no rules as sought by the Appellant in the second
appeal, on record, and that in the absence of such rules, an officer desirous of attending a training
course abroad only requires approval from the competent authority. Only on violation of the conduct
rules on the part of the trainee is action taken as per provisions of CCS(Conduct) Rules. With
regard to USAID support for training of Mr. Srivastava , the Respondent produced before the
Commission a letter which they were able to locate from the personal file of Mr. Srivastava
dt.12.6.96, written by the Under Secretary, M/o I&B to MEA confirming that the entire expenditure on
the above mentioned training would be borne by USAID. It was clear from the letter dt. 12.6.96 that
in the year 1996 USAID funding for Government officials on foreign deputation was allowed.
However, it also seems from the Respondents’ submission that rules have since then been
changed as is evident from Letter no. 23(2)/E.Coord/2006 dated 13.6.08 wherein it is stated that
proposals for participation in study tours/workshops/conferences etc. abroad at Government cost will
not be entertained.
6. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to provide copies of letters dated 12.6.96 and
13.6.08 mentioned hereinabove, to the Appellant by 5.5.10 and the Appellant to submit a compliance
report to the Commission by 12.5.10′.
2. The Applicant filed a complaint on 10.5.10 stating that the letter dated 12.6.96 which was provided to
him in compliance with the CIC’s order was written by M/o Information & Broadcasting to Ministry of
External Affairs to give clearance from a political angle for the two officers for training in USA and
does not indicate that in the year 1996 USAID funding for Govt. officers was allowed. In his
rejoinders dated 10.5.10 and 27.5.10 the Complainant contended that the letter dt.13.6.08 is just an
O.M from Finance Ministry to all Govt. Departments on austerity measures with respect to Foreign
travel. It only desires a ten per cent cut in foreign travel and in no way stops foreign travel. He also
stated that in order to ascertain the submissions of the Officials of the Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting , New Delhi to the Commission during the earlier hearing he had filed an RTI
application with the Ministry of Finance vide letter dated 28.7.10 and from their response he had
come to now that there were no records available with them for USAID financing for the Engineering
Officer of AIR &DD at USTTI Washington and also that the ongoing USAID/India programme does
not involve any such training. The Complainant thereby contended that the Ministry Officials by
mentioning these two letters had mislead the Commission. He also questioned as to why the two
Engineering Officers had to take earned leave for the training at USTTI Washington and not officially
deputed if there was nothing wrong in their attending the training. The Complainant reiterated that
the Respondent’s submission to the Commission that rules have since been changed is incorrect.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 27,
2010.
3. Shri Pyarelal Verma, CPIO and Under Secretary and Ms.Jayanthi G, Appellate Authority and Deputy
Secretary represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Complainant during the hearing narrated the background of his case once again and questioned
whether the rules were different earlier at the time of travel of the two officers and whether they had been
changed later as contended by the Respondents during the earlier hearing. The Respondent who had joined
only a few days before the date of hearing as the CPIO, requested for some more time to understand the case
and to furnish a proper reply.
6. The Commission on perusal of submissions on record and after hearing both sides, directs the PIO
to verify whether the information provided by the CPIO in the earlier hearing and as recorded by the
Commission is correct or not and to provide the Complainant with the correct information against the points in
the original RTI application, in the event correct information had not been provided, by 27.9.10 and the
Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 3.10.10. In the event the information provided
to the Commission is incorrect, the earlier CPIO to showcause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon
him for malafide denial of information to the Complainant. The response to reach the Commission by 30
September, 2010. The present PIO may forward a copy of this Order containing the showcause notice to the
then PIO who had made his submissions before the Commission.
7. The complaint is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Arun Kumar
H.No.331/13, Mohit Nagar
Dehradun 248 006
Uttarakhand
2. The PIO
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC