Central Information Commission
Kantubhai Maganbhai Gamit vs Department Of Posts on 20 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/128829
Kantubhai Maganbhai Gamit ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Posts,
Bardoli ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26.09.2022 FA : 24.04.2023 SA : 29.06.2023
CPIO : 10.10.2022 FAO : 31.05.2023 Hearing : 12.12.2024
Date of Decision: 20.12.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Ref No. F4/1/95-96 21/09/1995 Ref No. B2/4/3/96 dated 02/02/1996
(i) Particulars of put off duty allowance paid
(ii) Judgment of Departmental Hearing
(iii) Letter of removal from service.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Page 1 of 3"It is to intimate that the record in connection with required information is not available at this office as the preservation period of the said record is over."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2023 directed the CPIO to provide the information on point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI application. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO has replied vide letter dated 07.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"For point no. i:- The information sought is not available with this CPIO.
For point no. ii and iii:- Judgement of Department hearing and letter of removal from service is the same and issued vide SPO's Bardoli Memo no. B2/4/3/95-96 dated 30.09.1997 is enclosed here with."
4. Aggrieved with the above mentioned CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 29.06.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Lalit Borkar, Inspector of Post public grievance, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application was responded by the CPIO on 10.10.2022. Moreover, in compliance of the FAA's order, the information sought on point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI application had also been provided, along with the enclosures, by the CPIO on 07.06.2023,
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate replies to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letters dated Page 2 of 3 10.10.2022 and 07.06.2023. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 20.12.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, CPIO, Department of Posts, Bardoli Division, Bardoli-394601
2. Kantubhai Maganbhai Gamit Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)