Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01111-SM dated 13.8.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 11.02.2009
Appellant : Shri Ravindra S. Yadav
Respondent : Army Base Workshop, Ministry of Defence
The Appellant is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri V.M. Sontakke, Asstt. Labour Welfare Commissioner,
is present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO, in his letter dated 26 December 2007, seeking 12
pieces of information concerning a criminal case against one Shri VD Yadav, a former employee.
The CPIO, in his reply dated 22 January 2008, informed him that the said employee had since
retired from the government service way back on 30 June 1985 and had been given pensionary
benefits as per existing government rules and regulations. He also informed that they could not
comment on the issues raised by the Appellant which concerned the police authorities. He filed
an appeal against this before the first Appellate Authority on 26 December 2007 which that
Authority decided in its order dated 22 January 2008. He has now approached the Commission in
second appeal..
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present in spite of notice. We carefully
examined all the records as also the submissions made by the Respondent. We note that the
CPIO had not replied to the Appellant within the stipulated period and that is a serious matter. We
would like the CPIO to explain why he did not reply or provide the information within the stipulated
period of 30 days and why penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act be not
imposed on him. His explanation should reach us within 10 working days from the receipt of this
order failing which we will decide on the penalty ex parte.
4. As far as the information sought is concerned, we find that the Appellate Authority, in his
order dated 22 January 2008, has already provided the information that concerned the Public
Authority. The criminal case instituted by the police and other related information has not been
provided as the Public Authority claims its inability to comment on such issues. If indeed some
police case had been filed against the said individual while he was still in the service of the
government, the Public Authority might have taken some action as per rules. Therefore, we direct
the CPIO to inform the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order about any
action which the Public Authority might have taken, based on the police case, against the said
employee.
5. With the above directions, we dispose of this appeal.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar