Central Information Commission
Siba Sankar Patro vs Department Of Posts on 6 November, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/172386
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/POSTS/A/2018/172386
In the matter of:
Siba Sankar Patro ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/ Supdt. of Post Offices,
Department of Posts,
Odisha
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17.05.2018 FA : 04.08.2018 SA : 13.12.2018
CPIO : 18.07.2018 FAO : 22.11.2018 Hearing : 04.11.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Page 1 of 7
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/172386
Respondent: Shri Surender Nath Panda, SPO, Department of Posts, Odisha, heard
over the phone
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 17.05.2018 seeking information on two points regarding implementation of CIC Order No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/110809 dated 25.08.2017 and applicability of Para No. 9 of guideline vide OM No. 1/4/2009-IR dated 05.10.2009 of DoPT, New Delhi including;
1. Provide information on the implementation of the direction in captioned decision File No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/110809 of Central Information Commission, New Delhi, and on the applicability of Mutatis mutandis for Para No.9 of Guideline vide; OM No.1/4/2009-IR Dtd.05.10.2009 of DoPT, New Delhi by the Supdt. of Posts.
2. Provide information on action taken report by DoPT, New Delhi, as per the mechanism of constitutional jurisprudence upon non-implementation as well as undertone the direction in decision in File No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/110809 of Central Information Commission, New Delhi, and on the applicability of Mutatis mutandis for Para No.9 of Guideline vide; OM No.1/4/2009-IR Dtd.05.10.2009 of DoPT, New Delhi by the Supdt. of Posts, (who is under the direct control of Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle).
The CPIO, vide letter dated 18.07.2018, informed the appellant that clarification on the order No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/110809 dated 25.08.2017 has been sought for from the Regional Office Berhampur vide office letter No. CR/Genl-4 dated Page 2 of 7 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/172386 18.06.2018 for necessary action at this end. On the receipt of clarification from RO, Berhampur, suitable reply will be given to appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.08.2018. FAA, vide order dated 22.11.2018, directed the CPIO-cum-SPOs, Aska to supply the remaining information to the appellant as per SPOs, Aska letter No. Inv/RTI-05OCPIO/207/June-2018 dated 18.07.2018.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to issue a show cause notice to the concerned officials.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that an appropriate reply has not been furnished to him by the respondent. He further submitted that despite the clear directions of Hon'ble Commission, in its earlier order dated 25.08.2017 vide File No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/110809, the respondent, with malafide intent, did not furnish him due information.
The written submissions dated Nil filed by the appellant were taken on record.
The respondent reiterated the contents of his written submissions and submitted that a reply was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 18.07.2018. He further referred to FAA's order dated 22.11.2018 and agreed that the said order was not complied with by the then CPIO, Shri B.B.Negi. With respect to the earlier order passed by the Commission, the respondent submitted that since there are no clear directions in the aforesaid order, the respondent was in a state of confusion as to Page 3 of 7 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/172386 whether any action is required to be taken on the part of the respondent public authority or not. Moreover, as per point no. 3(iv) of DoPT letter no. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008, if an application is made to a Public Authority for some information which is the concern of a Public Authority under any State Government or the Union Territory Administration, application need not be transferred to the State Government/UT Administration. The aforesaid point only requires the CPIO of the Public Authority, receiving the application to inform the applicant that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/UT Administration. Thus, the appellant was informed accordingly vide their latest reply dated 28.10.2020.
The written submissions dated 27.10.2020 and 28.10.2020, filed by the respondent, were taken on record.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant, vide his RTI application in question, has sought information pertaining to implementation of CIC Order No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/110809 dated 25.08.2017 and applicability of Para No. 9 of guideline vide OM No. 1/4/2009-IR dated 05.10.2009 of DoPT, New Delhi. The Commission refers to the aforesaid decision passed by the Hon'ble Commission wherein it has been held that:
"3. The Commission records that the onward transmission of RTI application is prescribed under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act which is uniform for the Central Government as well as State Government authorities; and the Public Authority should have intimated that to the appellant. Disposed of."Page 4 of 7
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/172386 From a plain reading of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that no direction has been given by the Hon'ble Ex-Information Commissioner to either party. Thus, the question of action taken or implementation of the said order does not arise. Nonetheless, the respondent is under a statutory duty to furnish a categorical reply to every RTI application placed before them. However, the then CPIO, Shri B.B.Negi, despite definite orders of FAA, failed to furnish due information to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the then CPIO, Shri B.B.Negi for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
A copy of this order is marked to FAA to take note of the non-compliance of its orders.
The Commission, further, notes that although a categorical reply regarding the transfer of application to State Government/UT administration has been furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 28.10.2020, however, no reply regarding applicability of Para No. 9 of guideline vide OM No. 1/4/2009-IR dated 05.10.2009 of DoPT, New Delhi by the Supdt. of Posts, has been furnished to the appellant till date. The Commission, therefore, directs the current CPIO to furnish a categorical reply as to the applicability of the aforesaid DoPT guidelines in/by their department.
The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 7CIC/POSTS/A/2018/172386 Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 04.11.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) / Director of Postal Services (HQ), Department of Posts, O/o The Postmaster General, Berhampur Region, Berhampur (Gm)-760001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) / Supdt. of Post Offices, Department of Posts, O/o The Supdt. of Post Offices, Aska Division, Aska (Ganjan), Odisha- 761110 Page 6 of 7 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/172386
3. Shri Siba Sankar Patro Page 7 of 7