Central Information Commission
Mr. J B Sharma vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 14 June, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000307
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 14/06/2013
Date of decision : 14/06/2013
Name of the Appellant : Sh. J B Sharma,
Maya Bhawan, H _ 961, Palam Extention,
Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Arvind Thakur, Under Secretary was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both the parties.
3. With reference to the extension in service given to Dr NK Ganguly as DG ICMR, the Appellant had sought the copies of a number of documents including the communication from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare containing the clarifications sought by the DoPT letter dated 10 November 2005. The CPIO had declined to disclose the desired information on the ground that this formed part of the ACC papers and was, therefore, covered under the exemption provisions contained in section 8(1) (i) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this decision, the Appellant had preferred an appeal but, it appears, the Appellate Authority had passed no order.
4. During the hearing, the respondent representing the DoPT submitted that the relevant file containing the proposal for grant of extension to Dr NK Ganguly as DG ICMR was not traceable in the section concerned. He explained that this file had not been found in the section for quite some time and he had even checked about it after getting the CIC notice but the section still reported that the file was not traceable. The Appellant made both oral and written submissions in support of his claim that he should be provided with the relevant records. He also handed over a copy of his written submissions to the respondent during the hearing.
5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. We have consistently held that the Cabinet papers including the ACC papers must be disclosed after the decision is implemented and over as clearly mentioned in the proviso to section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act. In the present case also, we are of the same view. However, if the relevant file is simply not available in the Department, there is nothing the CPIO can really disclose. The Appellant reminded us that we had passed another order in the past directing the disclosure of similar information which, reportedly, the Department had challenged in the Delhi High Court. Be that as it may, since the relevant records are not traceable at present, there is very little that we can help in the matter except directing the authorities in the Department to institute an enquiry not only to trace the records but also to fix responsibility for its loss. If necessary, the matter should be reported to the police because this is a very important file and contains the decision of the ACC to grant extension which has been questioned by the Appellant consistently and all along. We direct the CPIO to place this order before the Secretary, DoPT for getting the matter probed.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar