Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001364
Dated December 14, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri Rakesh Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : Dept. of Posts, Lucknow
Adjunct to CIC Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2009/001364 dt.5.11.2009
The decision in the captioned case is as follows:
1. The PIO, Postal Directorate 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 stipulated
period of one month as given in the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO to appear before the
Commission with a written response on 14.12.09 at 11.30 am.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
on December 14, 2009.
3. Shri Raj Kumar, CPIO and Shri Surender Kumar, ADG represented the Public
Authority.
Decision
4. Shri Surender Kumar, ADG vide letter dt.10.12.09 stated that no RTI application was
received by the Postal Directorate, as submitted by the Appellate Authority during th
hearing on 5.11.09, for furnishing reply to the part relevant to the Directorate. He
further stated that CPMG, UP Circle was requested to send a copy of their office letter
dt.19.8.09 vide which clarification was sought for, as it was not traceable in their
office. CPMG UP Circle sent the same and the requisite clarification was issued on
10.12.09 It was stated in the clarification that promotion will have only prospective
effect even in cases where the vacancies relate to earlier year(s). During the hearing
the Respondents submitted that they came to know of the RTI request only on receipt
of CIC order from CPMG, UP Circle, Lucknow who also enclosed a copy of the
representation dt.10.5.08.
5. The Commission also received a letter dt.1.12.09 from Shri R.S.Mishra, CPIO in which
he stated that only certain clarifications have been sought for from the Postal
Directorate, New Delhi with regard to the cases of promotion of Mail Motor Drivers to
finalize all such cases in the circle. He also added that besides providing the
information in response to the CIC notice , the same has also been provided to him
earlier by the CPIO well within the stipulated period and it was also duly acknowledged
by the office. He further added that with regard to the action taken against the official
responsible for not putting up the Applicant’s petition/representation, a penalty of
‘Censure” has been awarded to the official by the competent authority and the
Complainant is also being intimated separately. Vide another letter dt.10.12.09, the
CPIO informed the Commission that the representation of the Complainant has been
rejected vide letter dt.10.12.09, and that the Cmplainant too has been informed about
it.
6. The Commission on review of the explanation submitted holds that there was no delay
on the part of the Public Authority in providing information and drops the penalty
proceedings against the CPIO.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. The PIO
Postal Directorate
Department of Posts
New Delhi 110 001
2. The PIO
Department of Posts
O/o Chief Post Master General
UP Circle
Lucknow 226 001
3. The Appellate Authority
Department of Posts
O/o Chief Post Master General
UP Circle
Lucknow 226 001
4. Shri Rakesh Kumar
Driver
Mail Motor Service
Agra
Uttar Pradesh
5. Officer incharge, NIC
6. Press E Group, CIC