Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Shri Rajesh Sharma vs Comptroller & Auditor General Of … on 8 March, 2010

Dated, the 08th March, 2010.

Appellant : Shri Rajesh Sharma

Respondents : Comptroller & Auditor General of India (C&AG)

This matter was heard on 24.02.2010. Appellant was absent,
while the respondents were represented by Shri R. Srinivasan, Director
(Legal) & CPIO.

2. Through his RTI-application dated 08.09.2009, the appellant
sought seven items of information relating to names and designations of
the officers of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India deputed to
the University of Delhi from time to time in the last 10 years for
appointment as Finance Officers. Appellant, thereafter, proceeded to
ask a series of questions regarding educational qualifications and career
progression of a third-party, Mr.S.K.Jaipuriar, who was apparently
deputed to the University of Delhi for appointment as Finance Officer.
His question also related to the deputation particulars of the said
third-party along with certain other details.

3. Through his communication dated 12.10.2009, CPIO provided to
the appellant a wide range of information relating to the RTI-queries.

4. Appellant went up in first-appeal before the Appellate Authority,
Shri Jagbans Singh, Principal Director (Headquarters) mentioning that
CPIO had failed to provide to him certain important pieces of
information and also alleged that parts of the information provided was

5. In his order dated 18.11.2009, Appellate Authority directed CPIO
to furnish to the appellant further information within 10 days.

6. CPIO, thereafter, furnished to the appellant further information
through his communication dated 26.11.2009.

7. Appellant in his second-appeal has requested that the Appellate
Authority be directed to decide the first-appeal as per Rules “without
simply delegating to his CPIO who had already responded exhausting all
Page 1 of 2
his ability and sincerity and cannot be expected beyond it on his own.”


8. I find that CPIO, on his own, had provided to the appellant
considerable information relating to his RTI-queries but appellant feels
that parts of his queries were not replied to. In situations such as this,
the best that can be done is to allow the appellant to inspect the
subject-file in order to satisfy himself that information provided to him
was not only correct but also as was available in the file.

9. It is accordingly directed that within two weeks of the receipt of
this order on a day and time to be intimated to the appellant by the
CPIO, appellant shall be allowed to inspect all files, records, documents
held in regard to the queries and his RTI-application dated 08.09.2009.
Appellant should be allowed to take copies of the documents on
payment of the requisite fee.

10. Appeal disposed of with these directions.

11. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.


Page 2 of 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.200 seconds.