Central Information Commission
Shriu C Pandey vs Department Of Posts on 20 August, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001660/5796
20 August 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. U. C. Pandey
Plot no. 12, Takrohi,
PO- Amraigaon, Chinhat,
Lucknow
Respondent : CPIO & Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Lucknow Division
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
FAA/DPS
O/o Chief Post Master General,
Department of Posts,
Lucknow
RTI application filed on : 20/09/2011
PIO replied on : 19/10/2011
First appeal filed on : 05/12/2011
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal received on : 30/01/2012
Information sought:
The appellant through his RTI application had sought copies of rules/regulations related to removal of word "cumulative effect" from CCS (CCA)1965, rules punishment on lower grade scale, rules related to issuance of charge sheet, rules related to issuance of fresh chargesheet, rules related to taking action on the retired person and other related information.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. U. C. Pandey through VC Respondent: Mr. B R S Mishra CPIO's representative through VC The appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided in response to his RTI application dated 20/09/2011. The CPIO's representative stated that all the information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 19/10/2011other than answers to queries of interrogatory nature/seeking interpretation of rules. The appellant pleaded that the FAA/DPS routinely passes orders upholding the CPIO's reply without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. He further stated that he wants to inspect the relevant records viz. his service book, the file Page 1 of 2 relating to disciplinary proceedings conducted against him and the postal manual. The CPIO's representative agreed.
Decision notice:
As agreed by the CPIO's representative the appellant should be allowed to inspect the above mentioned records and also permitted to take photocopies/extracts therefrom, free of cost, upto 25 pages within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
As regards the appellant's submissions that the FAA passes orders routinely upholding the CPIO's reply without giving an opportunity of hearing to him, it is needless to say that rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and accords with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing to the parties also brings greater clarity to the adjudicating authorities. This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties but this does not appear to be usually done by the FAAs, as probably there are practical difficulties therein, partly arising out of the number of appeals involved and partly due to the limited time frame in which the matters are required to be decided. In view of this, we would only like to suggest that the FAA should, as far as possible give the appellant including the third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2