Central Information Commission
Aditya Vikram vs Department Of Posts on 14 January, 2025
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/2023/651757+
CIC/POSTS/C/2023/651756
Aditya Vikram अपीलकता/Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Posts, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Samastipur, Bihar
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.08.2023 FA : 20.08.2023 SA : Nil
CPIO : 18.08.2023 FAO : 09.10.2023 Hearing : 10.01.2025
The instant set of appeal and complaint have been clubbed for decision as these
relate to the same subject matter.
Date of Decision: 13.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide the daily progress report on sending covering Memo from Bihar circle to NB Division regarding my posting and reason for delay in communicating covering Memo to NB Division. Also provide the deadline for sending covering Memo from Bihar circle to NB Division.Page 1 of 4
(ii) How many days of compulsory wait/under posting are allowed under rule -38 transfer. Also, tell how such intervening period from date of reporting to date of posting is adjusted i.e. under what kind of leaves.
(iii) Also tell about process of drawing pay and allowance of such period with documents required and whom to contact.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. Matter doesn't relate with RMS 'NB' Dn Samastipur. ii. No any days of compulsory wait/under posting are allowed under Rule-38.
Leave due and admissible will be granted by SRO Barauni. iii. On sanction of leave, pay and allowances will be draw and disburse by HRO "NB" Dn Samastipur.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.10.2023 stated that:
इस मामले की स क प र ण िकया गया एवं पाया गया िक आवेदक ने कुल 3 पारा पर जवाब माँगा है िजसमे पारा (1), सहायक िनदे शक-II, शाखा (कािमक एवं िविध), पूव े , भागलपुर से स ंिधत है तथा पारा (2) एवं (3) CPIO सह अधी क, रे ल डाक सेवा, एन बी मंडल सम ीपुर से स ंिधत है िजसकी सूचना CPIO सह अधी क, रे ल डाक सेवा, एन बी मंडल सम ीपुर ने अपने कायालय के प ां क K.15/INV-NB/Online RTI-12/23-24 िदनांक 18.08.2023 के मा म से आवेदन म िदये गये पते पर आवेदक को सुचना उपल करा दी गयी। जो पूणतः उपयु है एवं पारा (1) पर मांगी गई सूचना पर महायक िनदे शक-॥, शाखा (कािमक एवं िविध), पूव े , भागलपुर से आ ह िकया जाता है िक मामले िक जाँच कर आवेदक ारा पारा (1) पर मांगी गई सूचना िशकायत/आर टी आई शाखा के प ा के उपरांत 15 िदनों के अ र आवेदक को उिचत जबाब दे ते ए उसकी एक ित इस शाखा को भी ेिषत कर।Page 2 of 4
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated Nil
5. The Appellant/Complainant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Arun Kumar, Superintendent, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant/complainant inter alia submitted that information sought on point no. 2 of the RTI application has not been provided as per circular. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide information on point no. 2 as per their office circular or guidelines available with them.
7. When enquired by the Commission regarding availability of any office circular or guidelines w.r.t point no. 2 of the RTI application, the respondent was not well prepared with the facts of the case.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the RTI application has been replied by the CPIO vide letter dated 18.08.2023. The perusal of the RTI application reveals that the through query raised on point no. 2 of the RTI application the appellant is seeking clarification, opinion which does not cover within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
9. Further, the Commission takes grave exception to the lack of knowledge regarding the facts of the case during the hearing as well as against the callous approach of Mr. Arun Page 3 of 4 Kumar. Mr. Arun Kumar is hereby warned against repeating such conduct before the Commission in the future. Further, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal/complaint is dismissed/closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 13.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Office of the Superintendent, RMS, 'NB' Division, Samastipur, Bihar - 848101
2. Aditya Vikram Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)