Central Information Commission
Mr.Shrikrishna Manohar Apte vs Ministry Of Defence on 8 March, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 308, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No:CIC/LS/A/2013/000471
Appellant : Shri Shrikrishna Manohar Apte
Public Authority : DGQA, New Delhi
Date of hearing : 08.03.2013
Date of Decision : 08.03.2013
FACTS
Heard today dated 08.03.2013. Appellant not present but has sent a representation which is taken on record. The public authority is represented by Shri Sujit Goswami, Deputy Director (Adm-7B), Shri D.C. Nashkar, A.D. and Shri R.S. Rawat, AD (CPIO).
2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 07.09.2012, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"(a) Total number of cadre reviews carried out in respect of Foreman/JTO/AE (QA), Jr Scientific Officers, Senior Scientific Officers II, Senior Scientific Officers-I and Principal Scientific Officer with details of vacancies surrendered. New structure of ratio resulted amongst the above posts as the results of each cadre review.
(b) Status of most recent cadre review under consideration.
Details as to merger of JSO and JTO/AE (QA) or JSO and SSO-II under the purview of cadre review.
( c) Ratio between Foreman/JTO/AE (QA) and JSOs in various disciplines of DGQA (i.e. Armament, EE, Electronics etc.)"
3. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 28.09.2012 enclosing therewith a note dated 27.09.2012 of Deputy Director (Adm-6B) in which information on para (a) above was provided but as regards paras (b), (c) and
(d), the appellant was informed that no such information was being maintained. However, subsequently, the AA, in order dated 12.12.2012, had provided information on para (d) of the RTI application.
4. In the appeal memo filed before this Commission, the appellant has questioned the correctness of the information supplied to him. It is his main contention that while the Dy Dir (Adm-6B) in his letter daed 27.09.2012 had informed that only one cadre review was carried out in 2005 but the fact of the matter is that cadre Review was also carried out in 1984 and 1991 and, thus, false and misleading information has been supplied to him.
5. Shri Goswami concedes this point but submits that there are two Adm Divisions in DGQA and that he was aware of only one cadre review of 2005 and was not aware of cadre reviews of 1984 and 1991. Even so, subsequently vide letter dated 03.12.2012, information regarding cadre reviews of 1984 and 1991 was provided to the appellant.
6. It would, thus, appear that appellant has been supplied information in a piece-meal manner thereby creating ambiguity and confusion. A copy of the appellant's representation is handed over to Shri Goswami dasti with the directions to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and decide the matter afresh. Shri Goswami will be at liberty to exercise the powers u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act in requisitioning the relevant information from other sections/officers of DGQA, if required.
7. This order may be complied with in 06 weeks.
Sd ( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner Auhenticated. Additional copies of the order shall be supplied on application and payment of fees, as per RTI Act, to the CPIO of the Commission.
(K.L.Das) Dy Registrar Address of the Parties : (l)The CPIO, (2) Shri S.K. Dixit, 117D, Tirupati Niwas O/o PCDA, Accounts (Pension), Shyam Nagar, Kanpur - 208 013. Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad - 211 014.