Central Information Commission
Sergeant Bhaskar Sinha Roy vs Department Of Posts on 9 October, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/POSTS/A/2022/645132
Sergeant Bhaskar Sinha Roy .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Posts-India,
Kolkata Airport Sorting Division,
Kolkata-700028 (West Bengal).
प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 20.05.2022
First appeal filed on : 18.06.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 11.07.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 25.08.2022
Date of Hearing : 09.10.2023
Date of Decision : 09.10.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
(a) How many days a Job Application should take to go from operational office (like Post Office, MBCS, AMPCs) to Divisional Office, through proper channel?
Please provide me the copy of order / circular /OM/ manual regarding this. If order / circular /OM/ manual is not present, then it is requested to make the same at the earliest.
Page 1 of 4(b) How many days it should take to move out from Divisional Office with remarks (with either Affirmative & negative remarks)?
(c) What shall happen if any application not forwarded to appropriate authority with appropriate remarks? Shall the application be kept in the Divisional Office in the file or the application shall be returned to the applicant?
(d) Is the Divisional Head (SSP, SSRM, Dir etc) forwarding authority? Or he can hold the application at his own discretion? If the answer is yes, then please provide me the copy of order / circular /OM/ manual which empower Divisional Head to take discretionary decision to hold / reject the Job application or any type of application which concerns with the career of individual. If the answer is no i.e. he is forwarding authority, then I may please be provided with the reason for not forwarding my application and thus being a bar in career progression.
(e) As Divisional Head of Kolkata Airport Sorting Division have issued me a letter having the discretionary power to reject or hold any application even if all the clauses have been satisfied? If yes, then please provide the copy of such ruling (OM, Circular, Policy Letter) by which he has been empowered to do so.
(f) At the time of Document Verification while joining, all the certificates, identities cards are verified & photocopies kept in personal file. Even during Police Verification copies of all the Certificates are also given. While processing the application, are those certificates been cross checked?
(g) For issuing NOC, if it is mentioned that 5- or 3-years APAR, how it is assumed that the APAR should be form service of department of Posts? Don't the summary of APAR (Character proficiency & Trade Proficiency) mention in the Discharge Book issued by Indian Air Force? In this case I need the copy of Note Sheet where the remarks have been given in writing by Divisional Head of Kolkata Airport Sorting Division.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.05.2022, as under:
Point 5 a. comment, opinion of CPIO putting hypothetical questions is not admissible under RTI Act. Regarding order/ circular/ om / annual please refer to ww.india.post.gov.in Point 5(b) comments, opinion of CPIO putting hypothetical questions is not admissible under RTI Act.
Point 5( c) information sought is not clear. However action depends upon the type of application.
Point no 5(d) the official, Sri Bhaskar Sinha Roy was intimated with proper reason for not forwarding of h application vide letter dated 24.03.2022, 29.03.2022 and 04.05.2022 Page 2 of 4 Point no 5(e) as all clauses were not fulfilled the application was not forwarded and the same was intimated to the official shri Baskar Sinha Roy vide letter dated 24.03.20222, 29.03.2022& 04.05.20222 Point no 5(f) yes.
Point no 5(g) the question is not specific as information sought for which application is not mentioned.
Point no 5(h the required information is available in this division , consisting of 4 pages hence you are requested to deposit total Rs 8.00 (rs02/ page*4) at any post office and send the copy of the receipt of the payment to this office for further disposal of documents as sought for.
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 18.06.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 11.07.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 29.09.2023.
It is submitted that as all clauses were not fulfilled, the application was not forwarded and the Same was intimated to the official, shri Baskar Sinha Roy vide letter dated 24.03.2022, 29.03.2022 and 04.05.2022.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Mr. S. K Ghorai (Senior Superintendent) Appellant has submitted that he has not receive the information. He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the relevant information.
Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has submitted that they have provided point -wise information to the appellant. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.Page 3 of 4
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4