Central Information Commission
Rajeev Shrivastava vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 22 December, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/DIGDE/A/2021/633696
In the matter of:
Rajeev Shrivastava
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Directorate General Defence Estates,
Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaan Batar Marg,
Delhi Cantt - 110010
...Respondent
RTI application filed on (No.00075) : 03/04/2021 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 09/05/2021 First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Second Appeal filed on : 29/07/2021 Date of Hearing : 21/12/2021 Date of Decision : 21/12/2021 Note: The matter has been given early hearing based on the request of the appellant stating that the information sought is related to his service from which he will be retiring on August 2022.
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Shri Srikant Sharma, Deputy Director & CPIO, heard over phone. Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
(a) Names of the officers of DE Deptt / IDES whose names were recommended by DPC for grant of ad-hoc promotion to SAG and HAG by DPC from 01/01/2011 to 31/03/2021.
(b) Names of the officers of DE Deptt / IDES who were granted ad-hoc promotion in SAG and HAG by DPC from 01/01/2011 to 31/03/2021.1
(c ) Copies of the proceedings of DPC meeting held from 01/01/2011 to 31/03/2021 regarding grant of ad-hoc promotion to SAG and HAG to officers in Defence Estates.
(d) And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide any information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date no reply has been provided to him and therefore the CPIO may be directed to provide all the desired information to him. He also submitted that necessary action may be taken against the CPIO for not providing a timely reply to him.
The CPIO in his written submissions dated 20.12.2021 tendered an apology for not providing any reply to the CPIO and submitted that since the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and many third parties are involved, it was necessary for him to identify such information which is purely related to a third party so that the same can be segregated from the rest of the information and therefore no timely reply could be provided. He also submitted that in order to provide the information sought by the appellant, it is necessary to peruse each & every page in about 40-50 files for the past 11-12 years which is a time consuming process. However, if the appellant is interested he may inspect the files and identify such information which is essential for him or he may be given time till 15.01.2022 to provide all the available information to the appellant. He also submitted that with regard to the delay, he has been already warned by the Head of the Department to avoid such delay in future.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that initially no reply was given to the appellant as explained by the CPIO that the information was voluminous and it was not possible for him to check all the files to segregate what was to be disclosed and what not. The Commission is not convinced with the submissions of the CPIO as even if the information was voluminous, the CPIO was bound to provide a categorical reply to the appellant while explaining 2 all the facts to him. The Commission therefore expresses displeasure at the conduct of the concerned CPIO for such casual handling of the RTI application.
It is also noted that the CPIO is willing to provide an opportunity of inspection to the appellant. On a query to the appellant as to whether he is interested in inspecting the records, he submitted that it is not possible for him to travel from Kolkatta to New Delhi just for the purpose of inspecting the files and since there has been a long delay in giving any reply to him, the CPIO may be directed to provide the desired information to him in the form it is available. The Commission accepts the submissions of the appellant and therefore the CPIO is directed to provide all the available information to the appellant on email id [email protected] within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
It is also pertinent to mention that such a long delay, as was found in the present case, defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act and this problem requires urgent deliberation and rectification as timely replies are the very essence of the RTI Act. The Commission is appalled at the conduct of the concerned PIO for such bad handling of the RTI application.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the desired information to the appellant in the form of scanned copies on his email id mentioned above within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO should note that non-compliance of this order will be taken seriously by the Commission.
A strict warning is issued to the concerned PIO for handling the RTI application in a very negligent manner. He is directed to remain extremely careful in future while handling RTI applications and to provide relevant information within the time frame stipulated under the RTI Act, to the extent the information is available at that point of time, failing which the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him under the provisions of the RTI Act.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
3
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
4