Central Information Commission
Bireswar Pradhan vs Farakka Barrage Project on 17 March, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/FBPJT/A/2018/636441/03167
File no.: CIC/FBPJT/A/2018/636441
In the matter of:
Bireswar Pradhan
... Appellant
VS
1.Central Public Information Officer,
Farakka Barrage Project,
PO - Farakka Barrage, Dist - Murshidabad,
West Bengal, 742212.
2. The Principal,
Farakka Barrage Project,
Higher Secondary School,
PO- Farakka, Murshidabad - 742212
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 19/03/2018 CPIO replied on : 06/06/2019 First appeal filed on : 26/04/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 14/07/2018 Date of Hearing : 17/03/2020 Date of Decision : 17/03/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pani, Principal & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information for the academic session 2018:
1. Details of approval given by the Ministry of Water Resources for appointment of contractual teachers.1
2. Whether the approval was given for the ex-contractual teachers namely Sh. Udoy Chand Khamru, TGT (Bengali), Sh. Tapas Roy Sharma, PGT (Computer Science) and Smt. Sipanwita Pradhan (Parua), PGT(Bengali).
3. Copy of the approvals given as stated above.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO and the FAA did not provide any information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that even though he is satisfied with the information provided to him, however, there has been a huge delay in giving a reply to him.
The CPIO submitted that complete information was given to the appellant on 27.12.2018 and 06.06.2019.
On a query by the Commission as to why there was such a delay in giving a reply to the appellant, the CPIO was not able to give any justification apart from submitting that there is huge pendency of routine work in their organisation and due to lack of adequate staff, this RTI application remained unanswered. He tendered his apology and submitted that such a lapse will not be repeated in future.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that an adequate reply was given to the appellant but there was a delay as per the laid down time lines. The justification given by the CPIO that due to extra workload and lack of staff , the RTI application remained unanswered is not sustainable to explain the delay of more than 14 months in giving a reply, however, the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide intention on the part of the then CPIO for such a lapse.
The Commission expresses its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the then CPIO for handling the RTI application in such a negligent manner and for giving a delayed reply to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the concerned CPIO is issued a strict warning to remain careful in future while handling the RTI applications and to 2 File no.: CIC/FBPJT/A/2018/636441 ensure that a timely reply is provided to every RTI application received by him. He should note that in case this lapse is repeated in future, the Commission will be constrained to initiate penal action under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. The present CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO for his information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3