Central Information Commission
K A Jacob vs Rubber Board on 14 September, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/RUBBO/A/2019/101278
In the matter of:
K A Jacob
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
The Rubber Board, Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Administration Department, Sub Jail Road, Kottayam - 686 002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 30/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 10/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 07/11/2018 Second Appeal dated : 31/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 10/09/2020 Date of Decision : 10/09/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri S P Ganeshan, Assistant Vigilance Officer and CPIO (Vigilance), present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. What was the Grade Pay of Asst. Accounts officer, Rubber Board as on 22/07/2011?
2. Whether the Rubber Board has upgraded the Grade pay of Asst. Accounts officer, Rubber Board from Rs.4200 to Rs.4600?
3. If yes, give date from which the Grade pay was upgraded, sanctioned by which authority viz. as per 6th pay commission / Ministry of Commerce / 1 Min. of Finance / Board meeting of the Rubber Board by passing resolution / Chairman Rubber Board or any other authority?
4. If the sanction was given by the Board, provide Minutes of the Meeting.
5. Whether before up-gradation of the above post, sanction from the Administrative Ministry of Rubber Board was obtained to upgrade the Grade pay of Astt. Accounts officer? If obtained provide copy of sanction letter.
6. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided the partial reply.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite duly served notice on 01.09.2020vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED596681385.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 04.09.2020 reiterated the earlier reply dated 30.08.2018. He further submitted that the appellant had earlier also filed 3 or more RTI applications. During the hearing he submitted that the appellant is asking for interpretation and the same is not covered within the ambit of information.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the FAA's order is bad in law and shows his unhelpful attitude. Though the applicant had not enclosed the copy of the RTI application with his first appeal, the FAA should have given him an opportunity to file a copy of the RTI application or could have asked the CPIO for a copy. However, the CPIO's reply dated 30.08.2018 is correct and hence no further action is required in this matter.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no infirmity in the CPIO's reply. The FAA is cautioned to be careful in future while rejecting first appeals. The approach should be pragmatic and unnecessary litigation should be avoided by public authorities to save time and resources. As the appellant 2 has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case, the Commission finds no ground to further intervene in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3