CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. - CIC/LS/C/2009/000676 dated: 28.08.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 18(1) (b)
Complainant: Shri R. C. Sethi
Respondent: Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T), New Delhi.
Decision Announced: 29.3.'10
Facts
:-
The Commission has received a complaint from Shri R. C. Sethi of Khan
Market, New Delhi that his request under RTI Act, 2005 submitted to the Central
Public Information Officer, HQ, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, which
was first sent to the OS (Pers-I)/CBI/Head Officer/New Delhi on 05.06.2009 u/s
5(4) of the Act for seeking assistance by the CPIO and thereafter further
transferred to CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi on
11.06.2009 u/s 6(3) of the Act, seeking a copy of the enquiry reports submitted
by Inquiry Officers to the disciplinary authorities and the orders passed thereon
by disciplinary authorities in respect of CBI ID No. DPAD 5/2002/0869/3/51/91
dated 20.12.2002 and CBI ID No. DP (Pers.-I)/2006/4208/3/51/91pt. dated
18.12.2006, has not been responded to, even though the same was duly
submitted along with the requisite fee dated 02.06.2009. The complainant has
further alleged that the stipulated time of 30 days in the present case has also
expired in case of CPIO, SP (HQ)/CBI & CPIO/CBI/HO/New Delhi.
Admitting the complaint of Shri Sethi under Section 18(1) (b) of RTI Act,
2005 the Commission served notice on 22.02.2010 on CPIOs, Central Bureau of
investigation and Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi for furnishing
comments on the complaint. In response, both CPIOs have submitted their
comments on 25.02.2010 and 09.03.2010 respectively. CPIO, Shri Ashwani
Kumar, SP (HQ), CBI has informed the Commission that, as suggested by OS
(Pers.I)/CBI/Head Officer/New Delhi on 09.06.2009 the application of Shri Sethi
was transferred to DoP&T as, the enquiry reports in the disciplinary proceedings
had already been sent by the inquiry officer to DoP&T for a decision to be taken
at their end. The application of Shri Sethi was transferred to them on 11.06.2009
1
u/s 6(3) of the Act under intimation to the complainant and hence, there is no
delay on the part of the CPIO, CBI in transferring/ forwarding the application to
the concerned public authority as per that provision of RTI Act.
On the other hand, CPIO, Shri Chandra Prakash, Under Secretary,
DoP&T has informed the Commission of the reason for not responding to the
request of Shri Sethi stating that the letter dated 11.06.2009 of CPIO, CBI was
received and was returned to the CBI as per the record maintained in AVD-II
Section. The said reference of the CBI again came back to the department and
this was marked to the deemed CPIO, Section Officer, AVD-II Desk on
05.08.2009 by the diarist but, as ascertained from the CPIO, the same reference
was not physically received by him. The CPIO has described the disciplinary
action taken against those officials/employees for the paper which was misplaced
and has assured the Commission that such incidents will not recur in future. He
has however, stated that the information sought by complainant has been
provided to him separately.
Decision
From a perusal of the comments submitted by both the CPIOs, it is
apparent that the action taken by the CPIO, CBI on the request of the
complainant is as per the provision of Section 6(3) of the Act and well within the
time mandated for the same. However, the Commission observes default on the
part of the CPIO, AVD-II, Desk, DoP&T while dealing with the application
received under RTI Act. The Commission views this seriously, but disciplinary
action as per Sec 20 (2) having already been taken hereby directs DoPT to
exercise greater care in processing such cases in future.
On the other hand it has been observed that the Complainant Shri Sethi,
on not being provided with the desired records within the time mandated by law,
could have preferred an appeal through the channel available to him u/s Section
19(1) of the Act, which has not been done. As informed by the CPIO, DoP&T, the
desired documents have now been provided to the complainant separately.
Nevertheless, if, he finds the response unsatisfactory, complainant may
2
approach the 1st appellate authority of DoP&T u/s 19(1) of the Act, and
st
consequently if, not satisfied with the information provided on his 1 appeal,
nd
complainant Shri Sethi will be free to move a 2 appeal before us as per Sec 19
(3). The Registry of the Commission is hereby directed to send the copies of
comments submitted by the CPIOs to the complainant together with this decision
notice.
Announced this twenty ninth day of March 2010. Notice of this decision be
given free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah
(Chief Information Commissioner)
29.03.2010
Authenticated true copy, additional copies of order shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charge prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar
Joint Registrar.
29.03.2010
3