CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00528 dated 17.3.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Gaurav Sharma
Respondent - Dep't. of Personnel & Training (DoPT).
Decision announced: 21.8.2009
Facts
:
By an application of 3.11.07 Shri Gaurav Sharma of Laxmi Bai Nagar,
New Delhi applied to Shri A. Balaram, US, DOPT seeking the following
information:
“(a) Is the Director of Administration, CPWD or DGS&D
competent to impose a major penalty on a member of CSCS
or CSSS Grade-III, working in CPWD or DGS&D
respectively.
(b) If so, under which provision.
(c) If not, which authority is empowered to impose a major
penalty on a member of the CSCS or CSSS Grade-III
working in CPWD or DGS&D.?
(d) Is not the entry (f) under reference common to both
members of CSCS as well as CSSS Grade-III working in
CPWD? Similarly is not the entry (g) common to both CSCS
and CSSS grade-III working in DGS&D.?
(e) If it is meant only for members of CSSS and not CSCS, then
why no appointing authority in respect of CSS has been
given?”
To this he received the following response dated 20.11.07 from Shri
Balaram, US, DOPT:
“(a) to (c ): If both the authorities referred to in part (a) are common
the Competent Authority can impose a major penalty on the
Government servant concerned. A copy of the Part-III of the
Schedule of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is enclosed.
(d): The Deputy Secretary/ Director, Cadre Authority is the
Appointing Authority who can award major penalties.
(e): The Appointing Authority in respect of the posts in questions
has been specified in the entries against S. No. 1 and 1-A of
Part III of the aforesaid Schedule. It may be noted that the
1
appellate authority is common to the posts covered under
the aforementioned S. Nos. 1 and 1-A.’
Not satisfied with this response, however, Shri Gaurav Sharma moved an
appeal before Shri P. Prabhakaran, DS, DOPT seeking the specific information,
as below:
“The learned PIO has not clearly stated who is the competent
authority to:-
(a) Impose a major penalty on a member of CSCS, working
in the CPWD, an attached office of Ministry of Urban
Development; and
(b) Impose a major penalty on a member of CSCS, working
in the DGS&D an attached office of the Department of
Supply (Department of Commerce).”
Shri P. Prabhakaran, in his letter of 7.12.07 dismissed the appeal, as
follows:
“The details of information as available in the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 have been made available by CPIO. Further specific details
about such authorities or their location etc., not being available with
the CPIO of DoP&T, the appeal seeking such details is rejected.”
Appellant Shri Gaurav Sharma’s prayer before us in his second appeal is
as below:
“I beg to request that the designation of the authority
competent to impose major penalty on a member of CSCS
working in CPWD or DGS&D may be revealed.”
Shri Gaurav Sharma has, however, also appended the following
suggestion:
“The wrong interpretation referred to in S. No. 7 above may result in
miscarriage of justice, by conferring draconian powers in the hands
of Director (Administration) of CPWD or DGS&D who may not be
above to decide as objectively, as the DS/Director of the Ministry or
Department would have done. Please appreciate that the charged
officer may be working in and around Director (Administration) and
may have at times earned his wrath.”
The appeal was heard on 21.8.09. The following are present:
2
Respondent
Shri P.Prabhakaran, DS (E) DOPT
Shri A. Balaram, US (Estt.A) DOPT
Although appellant Sh. Gaurav Sharma had been informed by Notice
dated 4.8.2009 regarding the hearing he has opted not to be present. Shri P.
Prabhakaran, DS (E) DOPT submitted that the application of the rules in different
Departments, a copy of which DOPT has provided to appellant Shri Gaurav
Sharma, is the responsibility of the concerned Departments not of the DOPT.
The CPWD is part of Ministry of Urban Development while the DGS&D is with the
Ministry of Commerce and have no administrative relationship with the DOPT.
Shri Prabhakaran also submitted that the interpretation of rules is not a question
covered under the RTI Act, 2005.
DECISION NOTICE
From the above, it is quite clear that the CPIO, DOPT was not the
appropriate authority as defined under sub sec. (1) of Sec. 6, to whom the
appellant Shri Gaurav Sharma should have made his application. This
application should have gone to the CPIO of the public authorities concerned
which in this case are two, since Shri Gaurav Sharma has asked for information
regarding employees of the CPWD and of the DGS&D. CPIO, DOPT has done
his part by providing to appellant Shri Gaurav Sharma, a copy of the rules
together with the general principles regarding award of major penalties.
However, he is not the appropriate authority to ask for information specific to a
particular public authority for which the best authority is that public authority itself.
This appeal is, therefore, now transferred as an application to CPIO, Office
of Director (Admn), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and CPIO, Office of
Director (Admn), DGS&D, Ministry of Commerce, Parliament Street, New
Delhi, who will dispose of these applications in keeping with the provisions
of the RTI Act 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
3
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
21.8.2009
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
21.8.2009
4