Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/000937
Dated August 24, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri M.R.Garg
Name of the Public Authority : Dept. of Posts, Muzaffarnagar
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.7.4.09 with the CPIO, DoP, Lucknow.
He stated that one Mr.Satyavir Singh, Postal Assistant, Muzaffarnagar was
charge sheeted on 23.7.07 and that he (applicant) was nominated as Defence
Assistant by the official in the Departmental enquiry. In this connection, he
requested for the following information:
i) Copies of ledger cards relating to non-posting of RD transactions at
Muzaffarnagar Ho amounting to Rs.3419135/-
ii) Copies of RD transaction list of RD accounts of Muzaffarnagar HO
pertaining to amount.
The CPIO replied on 4.5.09 informing the Applicant that the information
sought is vague . Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal
dt.12.5.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the
information. The Appellate Authority replied on 9.6.09 denying the
information u/s 8(1)(h) and also since the Applicant did not provide any
sufficient references in support to information desired by him. Aggrieved with
the reply, the applicant filed a second appeal dt.19.6.09 before CIC
reiterating his request for information.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on August 24, 2009.
3. Mr.R.S.Meena, CPIO; Mr.Vijay Kumar, Inspector of Posts’ and Mr.Anil Kumar
Singh represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that a fraud was committed in the post office at
Muzaffarnagar and that 21 people were caught for not posting amounts of
money handed over across the counter for purposes of saving, in the ledger.
This amount was to the tune of Rs.34 lakhs spread across 7000 accounts.
He also stated that the Appellant was one of the persons involved in the
fraud and that the CBI inquiry of the case is still going on. The information
sought by the Appellant includes the amount of money deposited by account
holders along with the date on which the money was deposited.
6. The Commission after hearing the submission of the Respondent denies the
information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as disclosure of information would
impede the progress of investigation. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri M.R.Garg
H.No.235, Aryapuri
Muzaffar Nagar 235 001
Uttar Pradesh
2. Shri R.S.Meena
The CPIO &
Sr.Supdt of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Muzaffarnagar Division
Muzaffarnagar
3. Shri Jitendra Gupta
The Appellate Authority &
Director Postal Services
Department of Posts
O/o Post Master General
Bareilly Region
Bareilly 243 001
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC