Central Information Commission
Mini Jolly vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 15 March, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTOAN/A/2023/123479
MINI JOLLY .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/O THE MEDICAL
SUPERINTENDENT G B PANT
HOSPITAL, PORT BLAIR - 744104 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07-03-2024
Date of Decision : 15-03-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13-01-2023
CPIO replied on : 09-02-2023
First appeal filed on : 28-02-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer medical officer I/c Rangat Letter No. Pf- 129/CHC/Rgt/2018- 19/1177 dt 26.8.2022 addressed to Assistant Director (Admn) and copy endorsed to under signed regarding service verification and leave entry.Page 1 of 3
1. In this regard you are requested to furnish a copy of the service verification certificate from 1.4.2004 to 30.6.2008 and leave regularization order, if any in support of the leave entry made from 3.4.2000 to 29.4.2000.
2. A copy of action taken report and status report of Rd No. 1942 dt 25.2.2020."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.02.2023 stating as under:
"Point No. 1 & 2:- The information is consisting of 03 pages which may be obtained on usual payment."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2023. The FAA's order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Junu G Jolly (representative) appeared through video conference Respondent: Md. Haneefa, PIO appeared through video conference The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that he has received the reply from the respondent. However, he stated that copy of leave regularization order as sought on point No. 1 of the RTI application was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that requisite documents except leave regularization order has been provided to the appellant upon receipt of requisite fee as per the provisions of the RTI Act. They further submitted that despite extensive search leave regularization order could not be traced as it was around 22 years old.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the respondent Page 2 of 3 submitted that requisite documents has been provided and the same is confirmed by the appellant except leave regularization order. The respondent further submitted that copy of leave regularization order sought by the appellant was 22 years old and despite their extensive search, it could not be traced.
In view of the above, the respondent is directed that the relevant records be searched again and if the same is not located in that eventuality an affidavit may be filed before the Commission affirming that the information i.e. leave regularization order in support of the leave entry made from 3.4.2000 to 29.4.2000, is not available with them; a copy of that affidavit be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 15-03-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 3 of 3