CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01114
Dated, the 23rd March, 2009.
Appellant : Shri R.K. Sao
Respondents : Accountant General (A&E), Chhattisgarh
This matter came up for hearing on 19.03.2009. Appellant was absent in
response to Commission’s notice dated 02.02.2009, whereas the respondents
were represented by Md.Abdul Rauf, Sr. Deputy Accountant General.
2. Respondents filed their written-submission following the interim direction
of the Commission dated 02.02.2009. The question posed to the respondents at
that time was whether the two GPF part-withdrawals shown against the appellant
in years 1993 and 1998 were two distinct and separate withdrawals or the
withdrawal in 1998 was mistakenly attributed to the appellant by the Accountant
General.
3. Respondents’ contention is that the mistake occurred on account of the
Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) of the Department in which the
appellant was employed then, submitting a wrong data to the Accountant General
which made it appear as if the appellant had made two GPF withdrawals, one in
1993 and another in 1998, whereas he had made actually only one withdrawal in
1993.
4. Respondents further pointed out that after the mistake came to light in the
year 2007 on the basis of certain representations received from the appellant, it
was corrected and not only credit into the GPF due to the appellant was allowed,
he was also given the interest for the amounts earlier shown as having been
debited from his GPF account. Respondents also stated that appellant had
approached the Lok Adalat for correcting the error regarding the withdrawals
from his GPF account, following which the necessary correctives were carried
out by the respondents.
5. Appellant has demanded that compensation should be paid to him for the
mental harassment inflicted on him due to the negligent action of the Accountant
General and the DDO. He has pointed out that the Accountant General was not
right in passing the blame entirely to the DDO. As the final auditors regarding
all account, who receives all information regarding the withdrawals and credits
AT-23032009-10.doc
Page 1 of 3
into the employee’s GPF accounts, it was incumbent on the respondents to cross-
check the information furnished to them by the DDO for its correctness rather
than to blame the DDO for the mistake.
6. It is now an admitted fact that mistakes did occur in the noting of the
withdrawals from the appellant’s GPF accounts. According to the respondents’
version, this mistake was entirely due to the wrong submission of details by
DDO, who handled the cases of withdrawal from GPF accounts of the
employees. Accountant General went by the advice of the DDO, rather
uncritically, which resulted in the mistake which occurred in 1998 lingering on
till 2007, which also forced the appellant to approach the Lok Adalat for
redressal of his grievance.
7. Commission notes that there were undoubtedly serious mistakes
committed in maintaining proper account in respect of the GPF of this employee
especially from the period 1998 to 2007. As always happens, when such
mistakes are identified, fingers are pointed at one another by the officers dealing
with the subject. This case is no exception. It is also noted that the corrective in
this matter was provided by the Accountant General not suo-motto or through
voluntary action but only after the appellant initiated a Lok Adalat-proceeding to
carry out the corrections in regard to the withdrawals from the GPF account. It is
quite obvious that it is official negligence which forced this appellant to approach
the Lok Adalat and later seek information under the RTI Act.
8. However, considering the fact that now the appellant has received his
GPF credits including the interest thereon, no useful purpose will be served by
prolonging this matter further. Accordingly, it is directed that on the basis of the
written-submission made by the respondents, this appeal be closed.
9. Commission, however, directs the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh to
enquire as to how such mistakes were allowed to go undetected for such a long
period of time and who were the officers whose negligence allowed it to persist.
This is the least that can be done to ensure that an important office such as the
Accountant General which has the responsibility for maintaining GPF accounts
and other details in all financial matters of the Government as well as its
employees, is sufficiently alert to the types of mistakes which have been
demonstrated in this appeal and which had the potentiality of, and actually do,
inflicting detriment on the unsuspecting employees.
10. It was also noted that the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh ⎯ who is the
also designated First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act ⎯ seems to
overlook his responsibilities under the RTI Act in as much as the first-appeals
filed before him are being routinely disposed of by his subordinate officers. The
AT-23032009-10.doc
Page 2 of 3
statutory responsibilities cast on the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act
cannot be delegated to other subordinate officers. The AG, Chhattisgarh is
hereby warned to be careful about the manner of communicating his order in
first-appeals.
11. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-23032009-10.doc
Page 3 of 3