Central Information Commission
Mr.Amal Lal Arora vs Department Of Posts on 4 January, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File Nos.CIC/BS/A/2012/000767+000768+000919/1607
04 January 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Amar Lal Arora
C/o Shri P. S. Kem
Chamber no. A-33, District Court,
Near Gate no. 3, Tis Hazari,
Delhi - 110054
Respondent : CPIO & Sr. Post Master
Department of Posts
Sansad Marg Head Post Office,
New Delhi - 110001
CPIO & Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
New Delhi Central Division
Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 29/02/2012 & 12/03/2012
PIO replied : 27/03/2012 & 11/04/2012
First appeal filed on : 12/03/2012 & 27/03/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 20/04/2012
Second Appeal received on : 06/06/2012 & 26/06/2012
Information sought:
The appellant filed three RTI applications seeking similar information which is as follows:-
1. Who is appointing authority of a Stamp Vendor in Postal Department?
2. Who is disciplinary authority?
3. Who is punishing authority?
4. What are the procedural rule for holding enquiry against delinquent in the postal department?
5. As per letter No. F-3/39/2011-12 dated 16.02.2012 of Sr. Post Master as alleged by him, kindly provide the relevant documents alongwith complete detailed documents on the basis of his reply as alleged by him in para-1 about the decision of the different Hon'ble courts under Dowry of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with section 3 of "Dowry Act, 1961:-
(i) Name of the courts who decided the matters/cases as alleged by you?
(ii) Date of decisions of the matters/cases decided by the courts.
(iii)Under which sections the alleged matters/cases had been decided.
(iv) Title of the cases.Page 1 of 4
(v) Who filed the alleged cases?
(vi) What action had been taken by the department on the serious matters/cases after decision of the cases?
(vii) Kindly provide the complete documents on the basis of his statement showing known as "Istridhan" not the dowry given by the parents of alleged delinquent Shashi Bala alongwith their statements stated as "Istridhan".
(viii) On what basis the Senior Post Master stated and alleged that as 'Istridhan' not the dowry given by the parents of alleged delinquent Shashi Bala is it on the official record? Who placed on the official record? Kindly provide the complete detail.
(ix) As per letter no. F-3/39/2008 dated 06/05/2008 copy of which already sent to you by the Senior Post Master the conviction of the undersigned applicant u/s 406 IPC is of DOWRY or ISTRIDHAN.
6. Whether alleged delinquent Shashi Bala had informed her office regarding gifts etc. received by her at the time of her marriage or not, if yes kindly provide the complete documents including her statement and list of gifts items etc. received by her as per your office/public record.
7. Whether or not the Senior Post Master is competent as Competent Authority to take all the decision on a complaint or application made by a person without approval of the Superior or higher authority of the postal department?
8. Who is competent authority for taking action on a complaint or application made by a person in the postal department?
9. As per para 2 of the above letter of Senior Post Master:
(a) The alleged child/daughter of Shashi Bala is legitimate or illegitimate.
(b) Whether a married woman can conceived an illegitimate child as per provisions of alleged conduct rules as mentioned by Senior Post Master?
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has failed to provide the required information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Bhagwan Malik CPIO 011-23096070 The CPIO stated that the information on point no. 1 has been provided and for point nos. 2 to 4 the website link i.e. http://www.persmin.nic.in (where the information is available) has been intimated to the appellant. He argued that the information sought in the remaining queries is either interrogatory in nature and not covered by the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act or relates to an employee Ms. Shashi Bala on aspects which are governed by the service rules and falls under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. He added that the appellant has not cited any bona fide public interest to justify the disclosure of information and hence exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been claimed.
The CPIO explained that the appellant is an ex-employee of Delhi university and has been dismissed from service under Court orders; he has a serious matrimonial dispute with Ms. Shashi Bala and has been filing multiple RTI applications seeking various personal information with a view to harass & humiliate her and in the garb of seeking information is misusing the provisions of Page 2 of 4 the RTI Act with malafide intentions to settle personal scores. The appellant is not present for making his submissions/contesting the facts.
Decision notice:
In all the above three appeals similar information has been sought, hence the same are disposed of by a common order.
The RTI act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes such as why, what, when and whether. The petitioner's right extends only to seek information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record etc. or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority.
The exemption claimed by the CPIO for non disclosure of personal information relating to the employee Ms. Shashi Bala under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is upheld as the appellant has not cited any bonafide public interest to justify its disclosure.
As regard CPIO's submissions that the appellant is misusing the provision of the RTI Act, we are of the view that the Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused and we hope that the appellant will take a careful note for future and refrain from filing frivolous and vexatious applications under the RTI Act.
The matter is closed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Page 3 of 4 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 4 of 4