Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00553/AD
Dated: 5 December 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Sohrab,
House No. 224/2, Sector – 55,
Chandigarh – 160 055.
Name of the Public Authority : Press Information Bureau, New Delhi
Background:
1. The RTI-application was filed on 8 January 2008. The Appellant
requested for information against two points related to: (i) the promotion of
an individual, Smt. Satya Devi, in the Press Information Bureau, New Delhi and
(ii) whether she was debarred for promotion for one year with the approval of
DDG.
2. The CPIO replied on 24 January 2008 providing some information on the
promotion of Smt. Satya Devi. The First Appeal was filed on 30 January 2008
by the Appellant. He stated that the reply to his query ought to have been
‘yes’ or ‘no’ instead of a long answer and confusing the Applicant. The
Appellant requested the Appellate Authority to ensure that a right reply is sent
to him. The Appellate Authority replied on 19 February 2008. He stated that
the information was provided by the CPIO on the basis of records available with
his office. As regards the copies of relevant notings, the Appellate Authority
asked him to pay the prescribed fee for the photocopying charges. The Second
Appeal was preferred before the Central Information Commission on 18 March
2008. The Appellant stated that the replies provided by the Department were
not relevant to his query. He provided the proof of documents and requested
for photocopies of the notings related to the promotion of Ms. Satya Devi
3. The Bench of Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner,
scheduled the hearing for 5 December 2008.
4. Shri Narender Singh, Joint Director & CPIO, represented the
Respondents.
5. The Appellant, Shri Sohrab, was not present.
Decision:
6. The Respondents submitted that they had provided information against
both the points given in the RTI-application. With regard to the promotion of
Ms. Satya Devi, the CPIO stated that he was not in a position to provide an
answer as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ since Ms. Satya Devi herself had not provided
such an answer in her representation to the PIB. The Respondents further
stated that Ms. Satya Devi was considered to be sent to Hyderabad on
promotion for which she was not agreeable, although she was willing to go to
Chandigarh on promotion. For this reason, there is no complete denial or
acceptance of the promotion by Ms. Satya Devi. He stated that the reply has
been based on the written representation of Ms. Satya Devi and that he was not
in a position to interpret what is written.
7. With regard to point no. 2, the Respondents stated that copies of all file
notings related to the promotion of Ms. Satya Devi have been provided to the
Appellant vide letter dated 19 March 2008. A copy of the letter with the file
notings was shared with the Commission.
8. The appeal is disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G. Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Shri Sohrab,
House No. 224/2,
Sector – 55,
Chandigarh – 160 055.
2. Shri Narender Singh,
Joint Director & CPIO,
Press Information Bureau,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority,
Press Information Bureau,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC