Central Information Commission
R D Singh Bandral vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 7 December, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/107471
CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/107469
CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/107139
R D Singh Bandral ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
Present through video conference
VERSUS/बनाम
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
PIO, Block Development Officer,
Marwah Office of the BDO
Marwah, Distt. Kishtwar, Pin: 182205
Through: Sh. AmjadHussain-PIO/BDO and Sh.
Abrar Ahmad-PIO/BDO [through video
conference]
Date of Hearing : 07.12.2020
Date of Decision : 07.12.2020
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since the above mentionedcases have been filed by the same Appellant, the
above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO Second
No. on Appeal
107471 14.05.2019 - 04.07.2019 - 10.02.2020
107469 14.05.2019 - 04.07.2019 - 10.02.2020
107139 26.03.2019 15.04.2019 29.04.2019 - 05.02.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1)CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/107471 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.05.2019 seeking information on following 02 points:
1. Kindly provide the present status of GRS namely; Prahlad Kumar S/o Sh. Atama Ram & Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash, their place of posting, pursuant to directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of J&K, at Jammu in SWP No. 2210/2014.Page 1 of 4
2. Kindly provide, when they were appointed as GRS in said block and also provide their initial engagement/appointment order. Also, provide other re-engagement or other orders passed in their favour. Etc. Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2019.The First Appellate Authority scheduled this case for hearing on 14.09.2019 vide letter 05.09.2019, but no order was passed. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/107469 The Appellant filed anRTI application dated 14.05.2019seeking information on following 02 points:
1.Kindly provide the present status of GRS namely; Vaseem Rajja Sheikh & Rukhsana Banoo Wani, their place of posting, pursuant to directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of J&K, at Jammu in SWP No. 2000/2016 & SWP 937/2017.
2. Kindly provide, when they were appointed as GRS in said block and also provide their initial engagement/appointment order. Also, provide other reengagement or other orders passed in their favour.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2019.The First Appellate Authority scheduled this case for hearing on 14.09.2019 vide letter 05.09.2019, but no order was passed. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during hearing:
In order to maintain social distance and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for hearing, through video conference. The Appellant denies receipt of any information at all from the PIO till date. The Respondent on the other hand states that both the persons, viz. Prahlad Kumar S/o Sh. Atama Ram & Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash about whom information was sought by the Appellant, have been disengaged from service when it was found that they had been employed in contravention of the rules of NREGA. But the respondent has offered no cogent explanation for not sending any reply whatsoever in response of the RTI applications, till date.
Decision Upon hearing both parties and perusal of records, it transpired that the above mentioned two second appeals deal with similar queries, hence they are being jointly adjudicated by a common order. It is noted thatboth the RTI appeals have been dealt very poorly at the hands of the PIO as well as the FAA. None of the public officials designated under the RTI Act have bothered to act in terms of the mandate of the Act and have violated the provisions of the Act as such. The failure of the PIO in responding has been further compounded by the non- adjudication of the First Appeal by the FAA, which is not acceptable.Page 2 of 4
In the light of the above facts, the PIO is hereby directed to:
i) Provide a specific and accurate reply to each of the queries raised by Appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order. Compliance report in this regard must be submitted before the Commission by 15.01.2021, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated as per law.
ii) Submit a cogent explanation furnishing reasonable cause for not replying till date to the RTI applications filed by the Appellant, and causing obstruction in the dissemination of information and contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act. The PIO must clearly explain why no penal action should be initiated against him for such a violation of the Act and this explanation must reach the Commission by 15.01.2021, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated by the Registry of this Bench, on the basis of available records, as per law.
(3)CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/107139 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.03.2019 seeking information on following 06 points:
1.Kindly provide, the present status of suspension case file titled; wrong opening of sealed packet of English paper (File No. 31/2018), regarding suspension of Govt. employees of Hr. Sec. School, Batote by virtue of order no 778-Edu of 2018.
2. Kindly provide, the rule or law under which the officials of Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Batote were suspended. Provide copy of said rule or law also.
3.Kindly provide that for how much period an official can be kept under suspension, under law. Provide copy of said rule.Etc. The PIO, Under Secretary, School Education Department,Civil Secretariat, Jammu vide letter dated 15.04.2019 stated that this matter is under examination in the Department and when the case is settled the relevant order will be uploaded on the official website of the Department.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant is present for the hearing while the Respondent is absent. Appellant insists that this case may be treated as a Complaint instead of a Second Appeal, as originally filed, and appropriate action be initiated against the erring official for violation of the RTI Act. The Appellant further alleged that the Page 3 of 4 earlier PIO-Sh. Tanvir-Ul-Majid took capricious actions and hence action should be initiated against him for causing breach of the RTI Act, by giving an incomplete and vague reply. Although hearing notice for a video conference had been duly sent to the Respondent, no one has attended the hearing today, nor any submission received explaining the cause of absence of the Respondent from the hearing.
Decision:
In the light of the above position, it is noted that though a reply was furnished by the PIO, it failed to address the queries of the PIO. The failure of the FAA in adjudicating the First Appeal further denied the Appellant an opportunity to obtain the necessary information. The unexplained absence of the PIO during today's hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance has vitiated the proceedings because the respondent's version could not be heard during the hearing.
Under the circumstances, explanation is called from current CPIO/Addl. Secretary, School Education Department, Naseer Ahmad Wani as to why no penal action should be initiated for violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and vitiating the proceedings before the Commission by unexplained absence of the PIO. The explanation must reach the Commission by 15.01.2021, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated on the basis of available records, without giving any further opportunity, as per law.
The above cases are thus disposed off with these directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4