Central Information Commission
Shri.Dalbir Singh vs Banking Division on 29 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001393/SG/14337
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001393/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Dalbir Singh
U. P. O Mohna,
Ballabhgarh
Faridabad - 121004
Respondent : Mr. Sayeed Ali
PIO & Chief General Manager
National Bank for agriculture and rural development,
Haryana regional office,
Plot No 3, Sector 34- A
Chandigarh - 160022
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2010
PIO replied on : 31/03/2010
First Appeal filed on : 26/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : 13/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 02/10/2010
Information Sought: The appellant has sought 57 questions about 3 officers working in
NABARD. Few of them are enlisted below.
SL. Query Reply of PIO
1. Please provide information since when is Concerned PIO replied the date of appointment is as
this officer employed under Government of follows
India and through which advertisement No. H. K Talreja - 05/05/1973
Pratap Singh- 23/01/1985
R. K Sharma - 12/07/1982
2. Please provide whether the officer was Concerned PIO replied that the following officers
appointed directly to this post or was have reached to their posts through promotions.
appointed to some other post.
3. Please provide how much T.A has been Concerned PIO replied that these officers have not
provided to this employee by the been provided any TA by Government of India.
Government of India. Please provide the
last 10 years copy for the same.
4. Please provide how many times this Concerned PIO replied that these officers have not
employee has taken L. T. C in the last 10 taken any LTC from Government of India.
years. Kindly provide the copy for same.
5. Please provide information as to whether Concerned PIO has replied that Pratap Singh and R.
this employee has a government vehicle or K Sharma haven't been provided with a vehicle,
not. If yes kindly provide past 10 years log whereas Mr. H. K Talreja has been provided with a
book for same. vehicle under F class employee vehicle scheme
since 30th August for official use.
6. Please provide information as to how many Concerned PIO replied that there are no
departmental examinations have been departmental examinations been held.
passed by this employee.
7. Please provide information as to whether Concerned PIO replied that there is no provision for
this employee has been rewarded for his rewarding employees for their honesty.
honesty or not.
8. Please provide who writes the C. R for the Concerned PIO replied that the CR for the following
following employee and even provide his officers are been written by General manager.
rank.
9. Please provide whether this employee has Concerned PIO replied that H. K Talreja has been
been provided with a mobile from provided with a post paid mobile and the number for
Government or not. the same is 9457256896 there is no limit for the
usage of the mobile.
10. Please provide whether this employee is Concerned PIO replied that none of the officers is
been given permission to apply light or not. permitted to apply light from the Government.
11. Please provide whether this employee has Concerned PIO replied that no charge sheet has been
got a charge sheet from the Government? issued to the following officers.
12. Please provide information as to whether Concerned PIO replied that R. K Sharma stays in
this person resides in a Government or a private quarters.
private residence.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply of the PIO was dissatisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
According to the FAA's order the matter was taken under consideration and PIO had been directed to
provide the required information to the Appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO was not satisfactory despite the FAA's order.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sayeed Ali, PIO & Chief General Manager on video conference from NIC-
Chandigarh Studio;
The Respondent states that he has provided the information as per the available records. The
Commission notes that the Appellant appears to be asking an extraordinary large number of queries
and the respondent states that he has been repeating such queries number of times about the same
officer.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information appears to have been provided.
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
29 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AM)