Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Major G. Venugopal vs National Institute Of Rural ... on 5 July, 2019

Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                              के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NIRAD/A/2017/177721

Major G. Venugopal                                         ... अपीलकता/Appellant


                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम


The CPIO,                                               ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
M/o. Rural Development, PIO,
O/o. National Institute of
Rural Development & Panchyati
Raj, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-
500030.


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 11-02-2017            FA     : 10-04-2017          SA: 17-11-2017

CPIO : 15-03-2017           FAO : Not on record.         Hearing: 04-07-2019

                                   ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Rural Development, O/o. National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Hyderabad seeking information on three points and its sub-points, including, inter- alia: (i) date of activation of Aadhar enabled bio-metric attendance system for NIRD employees; and (ii) action taken on chronic late comers absentees as per CCS/NIRD bye-laws, etc. Page 1 of 4

2. Being aggrieved with the reply given by the CPIO, the appellant filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Commission on the ground that complete information has not been provided to him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information to him.

Hearing:

3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Vineet Tandon, CPIO participated in the hearing through video- conferencing.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 26.06.2019 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The appellant submitted that the respondent has not complete and correct information as per his RTI application. The appellant submitted that complete information should be provided to him as it is related to his retirement benefits.

6. The respondent submitted that complete point-wise reply/information has been provided to the appellant as per his RTI application dated 11.02.2017. On query from the Commission regarding the reply given on point nos. 4(b) and 4(c) of the RTI application. The respondent claimed that complete information has been provided to the appellant. He further stated that the representation of the appellant is pending before the Executive Council.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the respondent, during the hearing, claimed that complete information on point nos. 4(b) and 4(c) of the RTI application has already been provided to the appellant. However, the appellant denied receiving of any information on said points, neither the respondent uploaded their reply on the Page 2 of 4 CIC link. The respondent is advised to be careful in future while making any statements before the Commission. The appellant has sought specific information on point nos. 4(b) and 4(c) of the RTI application but complete information has not been provided to him.

8. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to give specific and categorical information to the appellant on point nos. 4(b) and 4(c) of the RTI application complete in all respects including copy of note-sheets (after redacting names of officers), present status of appeal/representation, etc., within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.



                                                              नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                          Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                  सूचना आयु )
                                        Information Commissioner (सू

                                                            दनांक / Date 04-07-2019

Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)


S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)




                                                                              Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:
1.    The CPIO,
      M/o. Rural Development, PIO,
      O/o. National Institute of
      Rural Development & Panchyati
      Raj, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030.

2.    Major G. Venugopal




                                              Page 4 of 4