Central Information Commission
Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 15 September, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/000803
August 03 , 2009
Pronounced on: Sep 15, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh
Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Environment & Forests
Background
1. The Applicant Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh filed RTI application dated 24.01.2009 seeking information about promotions of eligible DDR Forest Rangers of the UP Subordinate Forest Service to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest [A.C.F. for short] in State Forest Service Cadre, UP. The detailed RTI questionnaire contained 15 questions with regard to:
i. Rules providing for promotion of "Non-members of State Forest Service, UP" into IFS from 1967 to 2005;
ii. Certified copies of notification of Final initial recruitment list of officers of State Forest Service Cadre, UP into IFS upto 22nd March 1974; iii. Certified copies of seniority lists of "Members of State Forest Service Cadre, UP" on which select lists for promotion into IFS were acted upon from 1967 to 2005;
iv. Certified copies of Select Lists for promotion into IFS from 1967 to 2005; v. List of promotee IFS officers of State of UP between 22.02.1974 till date; vi. Basis of Rules, if any, for consideration of Gradation list prepared on the status of the officers of State of Forest Service Cadre, UP as on 01.07.99 for promotion into IFS against the vacancies upto 2000; vii. Cause/effect of diminishing numbers of promotee officers [ACFs] of State Forest Service Cadre, UP in Select Lists for promotion into IFS etc.
2. The Applicant filed a First Appeal dated 26.03.2009 by Speed Post on 27.03.2009, upon non receipt of any information from the CPIO against the RTI application. Subsequently vide letter dated 27.04.2009 the Under Secy. and the Joint Secy. Of the Respondent Public Authority informed the Appellant that the Appellate Authority upon considering the CPIO's reply dated 23.02.3009 found the same to be adequate. The Appellate Autority in the said letter dated 27.04.2009 had further directed the CPIO to forward a copy of the Appeal to the State Government for providing the requisite information directly to the Appellant.
3. However, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the CIC on 01.06.2009 contending that the complete observation as made by the AA in his letter dated 27.04.2009 were inadequate and absurd, being based on completely incorrect facts. The Appellant in his Appeal before the CIC pointed out that the observation of the Respondent from the very beginning was erroneous on account of the fact that no First Appeal was filed by the Appellant herein on 23.03.2009. Secondly the CPIO's letter no. 15011/14/2009-IFS-II dated 23.02.2009 apparently upheld and confirmed by the AA was never received by the Appellant. The Appellant in his First Appeal, inter alia, reiterated contents of the RTI application and made specific allegations about the utter disregard of the provisions of the RTI Act as also gross negligence exhibited by the Appellate Authority in overlooking the seriousness of the matter and affirming the CPIO reply without even considering whether the said reply from the CPIO was ever received by the Appellant. The Appellant further averred that the order dated 27.04.2009 passed by the AA was false, fabricated, insensible and misleading and sought that precise information be furnished against his RTI request.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled a hearing on 20.08.2009 and the parties were intimated accordingly vide CIC's notice dated 03.08.2009.
5. Sh. A K Lal, Director represented the Public Authority.
6. Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, in person alongwith Sh. Subhash Chandra Sinha were present during the hearing.
DECISION
7. During the hearing, it was observed by the Commission that no document purported to be the CPIO's reply as indicated in the AA's order dated 27.04.2009 was indeed found on record, nor was the same produced/submitted by the representative of the Respondent Public Authority. A correspondence dated 06.05.2009 issued by the Under Secy., MoEF was produced indicating that the Appeal filed by the Appellant was sought to be transferred invoking provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Secretariat, incorrectly addressed to the Chief Secretary instead of the concerned SPIO. Hence the Commission at the outset issues a Show Cause notice upon the CPIO for such improper handling of the matter clearly reflecting gross negligence on the part of the Respondent Public Authority and for the inordinate delay of the CPIO in even application of the Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005.
8. While discussing the merits of the case based on the voluminous submissions of the Appellant it became apparent that no information had been provided to the Appellant from either the Central [Delhi] or the State [UP] Public Authorities. The representative of the Respondent submitted that most of the information sought by the Appellant were available in files maintained by the State Authorities. It was further reasoned by the Respondent's representative that while promotion of the officers from the State cadre of Forest Service to the IFS were dealt by the Central Government, the promotion of the Range officers to the grade of State Forest Officer was handled by the concerned State Government, which in this case would be the State of UP. Hence the information relating to promotion/s of Range officer/s to the State Forest officer grade would be available with the concerned State Government.
9. After hearing the detailed arguments and perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that some of the queries as sought by the Appellant do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act 2005 since they can be responded only in the form of opinion/s and no information has been sought which exists on records. Accordingly the queries numbered as points 9 to 15 are dismissed. Some of the questions in the RTI application can be answered by the State Authorities as discussed hereinabove and as agreed by the parties. Accordingly, the queries numbered as point 3, 6 and 7 to be responded with available information by the SPIO. As against the query number 6 specifically the only Gradation/Seniority list of the State Forest cadre prepared in the last 42 years, as contended by the Appellant, be provided. The Commission further directs that against query number 1 the CPIO is directed to clarify the point with respect to the list annexed with RTI Application as Annexure 22 on page 249; as against the query number 2 the CPIO is directed to provide information referring to the notification dated 22.03.1974; CPIO to provide information as sought by the Appellant against the query number 4 and against the query number 5 the CPIO is directed to furnish information stating as to whether the files have been weeded out and provide evidence thereof in the form of an Affidavit to be furnished by the AA clarifying under which Rule was the weeding process undertaken and when. In the event that the relevant files are misplaced and/or untraceable, FIR to be lodged in this regard and copies thereof to be furnished. Since the representative of the Respondent present during the hearing agreed with the Appellant on the query number 8, the same to be accordingly responded to by the CPIO. The CPIO and SPIO are directed by the Commission to provide the information as discussed hereinabove by 6th October 2009 under intimation to the Commission.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Decision in the matter was reserved and pronounced in open Court on 15th September 2009.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Assistant Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Range Forest Officer Social Forestry Division Barabanki Uttar Pradesh
2. The CPIO M/o Environment & Forests Paryavaran Bhavan CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 003
3. Shri Hem Pande The Appellate Authority & Joint Secretary M/o Environment & Forests Paryavaran Bhavan CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 003
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC