Central Information Commission
Mrsanita Singh vs Central Vigilance Commission on 5 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
Decision No.CIC/DS/A/2013/902655/SB/
Appeal No.CIC/DS/A/2013/902655/SB
Dated : 05082015
Appellant: Ms. Anita Singh,
B 69, Lane 10, Shivajipuram,
Sector 11, Indira Nagar,
Lucknow - 226016, Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer/
Director,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan,
BlockA, GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi 110023.
Date of Hearing: 05.08.2015
ORDER
1. Ms. Anita Singh, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on 18.04.2013 with the CPIO, CVC, New Delhi seeking information on the following points.
i) Copies of correspondence & documents relating to representation of Shri Shyamal Ray, NTPC for his promotion from AGM to GM to any Ministries or Member of Parliament.
ii) Action taken by CVC on these representation and provide copies of relating files with noting and correspondences.
iii) Whether any other approach to further his case through informal channels of Government to NTPC, CVC or Ministry of Power is known to CVC.
iv) Names of the relatives of Mr. Ray posted in the Ministry of Powers, CVC, PMO who helped him to transfer in the NRHQ in March 2007.
v) Copy of policy papers and circulars etc. for dealing such formal or informal approach by employees of PSU.
vi) Any roll of CVC for promotion of Shri Shyamal Ray from AGM to GM on 18.01.2011.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.04.2013 provided para wise information to the appellant. On not being satisfied with the reply, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 09.06.2013 before the FAA. The FAA vide Order dated 12.07.2013 upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant filed the present appeal dated 22.10.2013 before the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The respondent Ms. Rashmi Sinha, CPIO and Director and Shri Amrendra Kumar, Section Officer, CVC were present in person. The appellant was not present despite notice.
4. The respondent submitted that no representation was received from Shri Shyamal Ray regarding complaint against Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh. The respondent further submitted that Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh is in the rank of AGM and such matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of CVC.
Decision:
5. The Commission observes that the CPIO has provided information as available with the Department to the appellant. Hence, no further action is required in this matter.
6. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.
(V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer