Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/000913
Dated November 20, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri Satendra Singh
Name of the Public Authority : Dept. of Posts, Ghaziabad
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.8.7.09 with the PIO, DoP, Ghaziabad
requesting for information against 7 points with regard to his MIS Accounts. On not
receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.10.8.09 with the Appellate Authority. On still
not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.17.9.09 before CIC. The CIC vide its
order dt.30.10.09 directed the PIO to provide the information by 30.11.09 and to show
cause in writing for the delay in furnishing information, by 4.12.09.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for December 11, 2009.
3. Shri V.P.Singh, CPIO and Shri Rajesh Singh, Appellate Authority represented the Public
Authority.
4. The Complainant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. Shri Rajesh Singh, Appellate Authority vide his rejoinder dt.26.11.09 to the
Commission submitted that the Complainant had sent the RTI request to PIO,
Ghaziabad who sent the appeal to him only on 4.9.09. He stated that the office which
has been shifted to a new building, was opened in June 2009 and had very little
infrastructure and man power during the period. The dates 5.9.09 and 6.9.09 being
Saturday and Sunday, and since he had to leave on tour on Monday and joined office
only on 16.9.09 , no information could be provided by him. The Appellate Authority
stated that the points raised by the Complainant in his appeal were already replied to
by the PIO in consultation with him (Appellate Authority) , but the Complainant is still
aggrieved that his original appeal and its reminders for which thorough investigation
were necessary were not replied to. The Respondent stated that he had ordered for an
investigation to find out the factual position to pinpoint the officials at fault before
giving a reply to the appeal so that the root cause of the complaint is sorted out and
grievance of the Complainant is suitably addressed. Consequently, the Complainant
had also expressed his satisfaction in writing stating that that he had no complaint
against any officials in the Dept. of Posts. The Respondent further added that after
getting the case investigated the Disciplinary Authority was ordered to warn the
officials at fault and m a reply to the Complainant was given on 20.10.09. Shri Rajesh
Singh submitted that the Complainant’s grievance related to non-payment of interest
on time . The interest could not be paid on that day he asked for it since the timing
for financial transactions was over. However, the same was paid the next day.
6. On reviewing the explanation provided by Shri Rajesh Singh as also the submissions
made during the hearing, the Commission observed that the PIO has not provided any
reason for not having furnished the reply. The PIO to showcause why a penalty of
Rs.250/- per day should not be imposed on him for the delay in furnishing information.
The response to reach the Commission by 15 January, 2009.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Satendra Singh
C-219, First Floor
Nandgram
Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh 201 003
2. The PIO
Department of Posts
O/o Director Postal Services
Ghaziabad
3. Officer incharge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC