Central Information Commission
Rajesh Bakhtani vs Department Of Posts on 18 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/BS/A/2016/000984
Rajesh Bakhtani v. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 13.07.2015, CPIO reply - Nil, FAO on 20.10.2015, Second appeal filed
on 01.04.2016, Hearing on 17.01.2018;
Proceedings on 05.07.2017: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by Shri M.L. Dhar,
ADG, Show Cause issued to Shri Pandey and Shri G.M. Taneja
Proceedings on 17.01.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr M.L.
Dhar
Date of Decision - 18.01.2018: Compensation awarded
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information on action taken report on speed post number ER204978115IN dated 29.10.2012. CPIO provided reply on the basis of CIC's decision in the case of Ms. Kanchan Bakhtani and report of the Rajasthan circle and the same was upheld by the FAA. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 07.07.2017:
2. The officer representing the respondent authority stated that the information was provided to the appellant after a delay of 6 months. The Commission directs Shri Pandey and Shri G.M. Taneja, CPIOs to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for not responding to the RTI application within the time specified in RTI Act, before 07.08.2017.
Decision :
3. Mr. M.L. Dhar, representing the respondent authority stated that the RTI application dated 13.07.2015 was responded timely and response sent from Rajasthan office was furnished on 19.08.2015. The speed post could not be delivered and the appellant had a grievance that he was not able to download the application form for examination for post of Postal Assistant sent through e-
mail id in form of link. Mr. Dhar submitted that CMC Pvt. Ltd., a private company was hired by their office for sending applications and conducting examination.
CIC/BS/A/2016/000984 Page 1 However, after receiving the complaint from the appellant, the private company was blacklisted.
4. The appellant lost an opportunity to appear in the examination for Postal Assistant because the application form could not be downloaded from the link sent by the Public Authority. Though the two CPIOs responded in time providing the information as available, applicant suffered deprivation because of the defect of Public Authority. CPIO should have sent the application form in PDF form instead of link; thus the Commission finds information furnished to him was incomplete as a result of which he lost an opportunity to appear in the examination.
5. The Commission finds it a fit case to award Rs. 5,000 as token compensation to the appellant, within 15 days from date of receipt of this order.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Shri Rajesh Bakhtani, CIC/BS/A/2016/000984 Page 2