Central Information Commission
Kuldeep Chand vs Ministry Of Textiles on 13 February, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/NIFTY/A/2017/604181/00050
File no.: CIC/NIFTY/A/2017/604181
In the matter of:
Kuldeep Chand
... Appellant
VS
Public Information Officer
National Institute of Fashion Technology
NIFT Campus, Chheb,
Kangra (H.P.) - 176 001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 28/03/2017 CPIO replied on : 21/04/2017 First appeal filed on : 12/06/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 20/06/2017 Second Appeal dated : 08/08/2017 Date of Hearing : 12/02/2019 Date of Decision : 12/02/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present Respondent: Dinesh Kumar Ranga, Joint Director , National Institute of
Fashion Technology, Kangra and CPIO present with Smt Ramneek Lata ( third party) Information Sought:
The appellant sought information regarding Smt Ramneek Lata working as an attendant cum ANM at NIFT, Kangra on two points as under:1
1. Details of last emoluments/salary statement of Smt. Ramneek Lata paid by NIFT.
2. Copy of certificates/documents furnished by her in NIFT at the time of joining the service.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondents during Hearing:
The appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and sought the salary details of the third party. He also submitted that he received the FAA's order only and not the reply dated 21/04/2017 and the copy of third party objection was also not enclosed.
The third party Smt Ramneek Lata was also present and objected to the disclosure of information related to her, being personal in nature.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant on 21.04.2017 after duly following the procedure envisaged under Section 11 of the RTI Act. He also submitted that there was no pin code available in the RTI application hence they could not send the reply dated 21.04.2017 by speed post and had to send it through ordinary post.
Furthermore, the CPIO offered the appellant that he shall enclose the reply and send it through e-mail. He again requested the appellant to provide his e- mail id.
Observations:
The Commission noted that e-mail id was also mentioned in the RTI application. Therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that present CPIO Dinesh Kumar Ranga, Joint Director and CPIO came to attend the CIC hearing without preparing the facts of the case. Shri Dinesh Ranga is issued strict warning to be well versed with the facts of the case ,while appearing before the Commission.
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that an appropriate reply has been provided by the then CPIO denying information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the fact that the appellant did 2 File no.: CIC/NIFTY/A/2017/604181 not mention his Pin code in the RTI application is false. The address contained the Pin code as 1 which means the Pin code is 171001. The then CPIO appears to have ignored the same. The then CPIO is accordingly advised to be careful in future.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to send the copy of the reply dated 21.04.2017 alongwith a copy of the objection letter of the third party to the appellant's e-mail id [email protected] and endorse the same to the Commission's link http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add as agreed by the appellant during hearing.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3