Central Information Commission
Mrpo Rohtak Fd H K Bansal vs Department Of Telecommunications on 22 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001232/7681
22 May 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Er. H. K. Bansal
Kanta Niwas
1011/24, Jagdish Colony,
Rohtak - 124001
Respondent : CPIO & Dy. Secretary (Admin)
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Dy. Secretary(Coord.)
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan, (RTI Section)
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Director (Electrical)
Department of Telecommunications
1110, Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashok Road, New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Director (CWG)
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Director (Policy)
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Director (P&RB)
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Director (Coord.)
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
Page 1 of 3
CPIO (O&M Division)
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Under Secretary
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Director (Civil)
Department of Telecommunications
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
RTI application filed on : 20/09/2013
PIO replied on : 10/10/2013, 18/10/2013, 29/10/2013, 05/11/2013,
08/11/2013 & 11/11/2013
First appeal filed on : 20/11/2013
First Appellate Authority order : 01/01/2014
Second Appeal received on : 14/05/2014
Information sought:
The applicant has sought the following information:-
1.0 Inform role & functions of various functionaries of Telecom Commission [Viz Chairmen/Members/Advisors etc] to be discharged by them in so far as HRD functions concerning CIVIL DISCIPLINE of P&T BW Gr. 'A' service. In this regard following in addition may be informed/supplied [as attested true copies] and thereafter inspection of concerned files may be allowed.
(a) Incumbency of various above functionaries since 01/10/2000.
(b) In the absence [as a result of leave etc] the link officer arrangement details of such above functionaries during various periods.
(c) Copy of document [other than (b) above] which authorities to discharge function of other co-equivalent functionary in his absence.
2.0 Refer to DOT file No:- 1-1/2007-EW & 1-2/2007-EW got inspected under RTI on 17/09/2013 [regarding Sr. DDG(BW) post creation/Appointment]. In this regard following may be informed/supplied [as attested true copies] and thereafter inspection of other concerned files may be allowed.
(a) Whereabout of M [P] TC, the named member for this DPC as per P&T BW Gr. 'A' Service Rules on the date of DPC dated 27/09/2007.
(b) The rules under which Member (T) TC could be substituted to participate in the DPC meeting against the provisions for M [P] TC, as per P&T BW Gr. 'A' Service Rules.
(c) The reasons for adopting unamended P&T BW Gr. 'A' Service Rules - 1994 when P&T BW Gr. 'A' Service Amendment Rules-1997 was in existence.
(d) For holding this DPC, information concerning compliance of specific conditions in the approval of Telecom Commission [Viz nomenclature of Post, framing of RR, consideration of Arch Discipline officer & consideration of Senior most officer etc] Page 2 of 3
(e) The Rules under which such a DPC meeting [in violation of above] could be considered valid and proper.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Er. H K Bansal through VC Respondent: Mr. Vinod Kumar Hirna, Mr. S P Mohapatra & Mr. O S Ashok The appellant stated that he has not received information requested under para 1(c) & all the information requested under para 2. He alleged that the Member (Technology)/Member (Service) have participated in the DPC proceedings whereas as per rule only the Member (Production) is the authorised member of the DPC and he wants to know under which rule the other officers participated. He further alleged that the department is acting in violation of the laid down guidelines and has not amended the service rules despite 5th CPC becoming effective from 01/01/1996.
The CPIO stated that there is no information on record relating to para 1(c). With regard to para 2, he stated that the appellant has inspected the concerned file and there is nothing further which can be provided other than what is available in the file.
The appellant pointed out that his 1st appeal dated 20/11/2013 has not been decided by the FAA.
Decision notice:
At the outset it is clarified that the CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish information/documents as available on record; however, eliciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
The appellant has informed that his 1st appeal has not been decided by the FAA. In this regard it is needless to say that the FAA should invariably decided an appeal and as far as possible also give the appellant including third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant.
The information as available on record has been provided.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 3 of 3