CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00703 dated 2-4-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rakesh Bhartiya
Respondent: Dep't of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
Decision Announced 16.9.’09
The appeal was heard on 16-9-2009. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri Rakesh Bhartiya.
Respondent
Shri M.C. Luther, DS, DOPT.
Both parties submitted that this is a case duplicate to the case already
heard in file No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00379 in which we have given the following
decision:
“A copy of the documents submitted by Shri Bhartiya were
handed over to Shri M.C. Luther in the hearing. He will now
make an effort to trace the documents and at any rate provide
an answer to all questions from 3 to 7 in Shri Bhartiya’s
application of 16-10-2007 within 10 working days of the date of
receipt of this decision notice providing to him the present status
of the questions asked.
We have also learned with some dismay of the fact that not
even a beginning has been made in maintaining the ACRs to
bring their maintenance in line with the mandate of Section 4 (1)
(a) of the RTI Act which reads as under:
4. (1) Every public authority shall–
a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a
manner and the form which facilitates the right to information
under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate
to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject
to availability of resources, computerised and connected
through a network all over the country on different systems so
that access to such records is facilitated;
We have also been told that copies of these documents have
been stored in chambers subject to frequent cut-off of electric
supply with no arrangements for emergency power supply or
emergency lighting. These facts constitute a sad and telling
commentary on the functioning of a core area of India’s1
Department of Personnel, which concerns the career of all
officers of what are sometimes described India’s elite civil
services. Under the authority vested in us under sub Section 5
of Section 25 it is recommended to Shri Rahul Sareen,
Secretary, DOPT that he will immediately initiate the process of
computerisation of records in the ACR Division of the DOPT.
Shri KM Chandrasekhar Cabinet Secretary might reconsider the
present policy, so that for cases where, as a result of the
primitive facilities at present available in that Division of DoPT, if
ACRs are lost for a particular year these will not be considered a
mandatory requirement, for decisions as they are at present.”
On this basis CPIO Shri M.C. Luther, DS, DOPT submitted that he has
already brought this to the notice of Registry of this Commission through a
letter received in this Commission on 10-9-09. in which one minor difference
between the two files was pointed out.
On his part appellant Shri Rakesh Bhartiya submitted a copy of letter of
10-9-2009 from Ms. Madhu Wadhawan Sinha, Director (Admn.) Department
of Science & Technology in which the latter has informed Shri Bhartiya as
follows:
“It has been confirmed by Cr unit that the ACR was duly
delivered at the desired address namely Shri B. S. A.
Padmanabha, the then Under Secretary, DOP&T on 28.2.2006.
Fortunately after a thorough search, photocopy of the said ACR
has been traced and forwarded to DOPT.”
With this the case now stands closed. All that remains is the
compliance report of the DOPT towards reforming their ACR Division. The
present appeal, however, is infructuous and is therefore, closed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
16-9-2009
2
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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
16-9-2009
3