Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00031-SM
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 30 July 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Nagendra Singh,
Vill: Makhdumpur,
P.O. Pachrukhiya (Kalan)
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Integrated Headquarters,
ADG AE, G-6, D-1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan, Gate No. 4,
New Delhi - 110 011.
The Complainant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Brig. Ved Prakash, CPIO
(ii) Lt. Col. R. Balaji, GSO (Legal)
(iii) Lt. Col. D. John Bosco
2. A compliant filed by Shri Nagendra Singh had been decided by the
Central Information Commission in the case No. CIC/WB/2008/00031/SG on
6 January 2009. The CIC had condoned the delay by the CPIO in providing
the information and had closed the case. In the meanwhile, the same
Complainant had also complained to the CIC that the information desired by
him originally was not provided to him completely and whatever was
provided to him was not relevant. On this complaint, the CIC had given a
notice to the CPIO on May 20, 2009 to explain why penalty should not be
imposed on him for not providing the information. It is in this connection
that the matter came up before us for hearing. Both the Complainant and
the Respondents were present. The fact of the case is that the Complainant
had sent a request dated August 1, 2009, seeking three items of information
in respect of the RRT-32 Course, 2000. The CPIO had replied to him on
September 24, 2007 and had informed that the documents pertaining to
RRT-32 Course had since been destroyed as per the schedule of retention of
documents. He also informed that the file containing Call Up Notice had
CIC/WB/C/2008/00031-SM
also been destroyed being more than 3 years old and, therefore, the exact
date as desired by the Complainant could not be ascertained.
3. The Complainant argued that if the records had been destroyed how
was it that the references to Call Up Notice issued to him on August 6, 2000
were retained and also mentioned in the CPIO’s reply. To this, the
Respondent explained that since the Complainant had appealed against his
non-inclusion in the recruitment process, documents relating to his case still
existed and, based on that, the CPIO had replied to him the way he did.
The situation in brief is that the Respondent claims to have destroyed the
records as per their retention schedule and the desired information is no
longer available. Therefore, we are afraid we cannot be of any help to the
Appellant. The case is closed.
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/WB/C/2008/00031-SM