CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001428/8522
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001428
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Parasaram Ganesh
SSA, EPF Organisation
Sub Regional Office, White Field
Lakshmi Complex, Above Vijaya Bank
Old Madras Road
KR Puram, Bangalore
Karnataka- 560036
Respondent : Public Information Officer & Regional PF
Commissioner II
Ministry of Labour. Government of India
# 13, ‘Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan’
Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road,
Bangalore- 560025
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2009
PIO replied : 20/11/2009
First appeal filed on : 15/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal received on : 23/12/2009
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Seniority list of newly SSA “All the three issues are under process. This could not
appointed after 01 Jan 2006. be done for want of Assessment Report and ACRs
which have been called for from RPFC, Mangalore &
Peenya. Reminders have been issued.”
2. Seniority list of SSA placed under Same as above.
60% and 40% under AOD scheme.
3. The reasons for delay in Same as above.
confirmation of newly appointed
SSAs, who had cleared their
probation period and the officials
held responsible for such delay with
period of time.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order had been passed by the FAA.
Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provide by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Parasaram Ganesh;
Respondent: Absent;
The appellant states that no information has been provided to him. It is ridiculous that the PIO
has after 80 days informed the appellant that no information is available. Certainly this information
could have been supplied even in 10 days. If the information is available now the PIO is directed to
provide it to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information available to the appellant before
30 July 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 11 August 2010 at 10.30am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
14 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN)
Page 2 of 2