Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/000378
Dated July 30, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri Rajaram Singh
Name of the Public Authority : BSNL, New Delhi
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.21.1.09 with the CPIO, BSNL CO,
New Delhi. He requested for information against 4 points regarding denial of
adhoc promotion to him. On not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint
dt.8.4.09 before the CIC. The CIC vide its order dt.18.6.09 directed the PIO
to provide the information to the Complainant by 15.7.09 and also to show
cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day should not be imposed on him
for not providing the information within the mandatory period.
.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for July 30, 2009.
3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, DGM(MIS) cum CPIO and Mr. Joginder Singh, AGM(RTI)
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the information was provided on 6.4.2009.
The Commission noted that the complaint to the CIC was dated 8.4.09 and
that the CPIO’s reply and the complaint to the CIC had crossed each other.
Since there is no response from the Complainant after receiving the
information it is assumed that he is satisfied with the information provided.
As regards the show cause for delay in supply of the information, the
Respondent submitted that the RTI application was received on 27.1.2009.
and immediately on receipt of the application, efforts to collect the
information were made on 28.1.2009 despite the fact that the information
asked for is strictly not within the definition of information given u/s 2(f) of
the RTI Act. The Respondent further stated that the deemed CPIO informed
that as the records of ACRs required for assessing the suitability of the
Complainant were not available and the status of ACRs was not known, the
matter had to be consulted with Circle office before giving the information
asked for. He further stated that it was found from records that in the
Departmental Promotion Committee recommendations dated. 27.6.08 ,it was
indicated against the name of the Applicant “Not assessed for want of ACRs”
and in the meantime, the status of vigilance clearance was monitored and the
Circle SSA had forwarded the representation of the Complainant alongwith
copy of the punishment order dated 8/12.9.08 wherein penalty of Censure
was reported to have been imposed on the Complainant. The ACRs of the
Complainant have since been received from the Circle office and the officer is
being considered for promotion to DE grade on adhoc basis. The Respondent
further submitted that the delay has also occurred because the concerned
Circle/SSA had to be contacted to get the necessary inputs to supply to the
Complainant details of the status of his case. In the light of the explanation
given above, the Commission condones the delay in providing the
information. The complaint is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Rajaram Singh
S/o Late Shri Munni Lal
R/o H.No.6 F/128
M.I.G.Awas Vikas Colony
Sikandara Yojana
Agra
2. The PIO
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
A-703 Statesman House
B-148 Barakhamba Road
New Delhi
3. Officer in charge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC