Central Information Commission
Mr.Harpal Singh Kandara vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 8 February, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000187/BS/1860
08 February 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Harpal Singh Kandara
F-114, New Seelampur,
Delhi- 110053
Respondent : CPIO
EPFO
Regional Office Surat
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road,
Surat- 395001
RTI applications filed on : 19/08/2011
PIO replied on : 15/09/2011
First appeals filed on : 29/09/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 10/10/2011
Second Appeal received on : 18/01/2012
Information sought:
1. Duly certified photocopies of the noting made in the personal file of the applicant in reference to office order no.GJ/EPFO/RO/SRT/Adm/Personal file/112 dated 05/05/2011.
2. What was the period of penalty as proposed by the DA/SS/APFC/RPFC-ll respectively on page no. 3 to 5 and thereby approval of the competent authority i.e. the then OIC/RPFC-l vide dated 12/04/2010 on page no. 5 on the noting side of the personal file of the applicant in reference to H.O. Order no. Vig.VII(I)/2009/10577 dated 18/08/2009 and No.Vig.VII(l)/2007/10625 dated 20/8/2009. Pl. specify.
3. Whether any office order communicating the approval of the OIC/RPFC-l dt 12/04/2010, specifying the period of penalty was issued by Regional office/Surat as per Rule 11 CCS(CCA) Rules and in terms of G.I.M.F.O.M. No. F-2(34)E-III/59 dated 17/8/59, 9/6/60 & 24/6/63. If issued, a duly certified photocopy of the same alongwith acknowledgement of the applicant may be supplied. However, if no such office order was issued, then what was the motive and reason for not issuing the office order in pursuance of the above approval and why there was no communication of the same to the applicant. Please provide the names and designation of the officials involved in the process and responsible for such lapse.
4. Whether any reduction in the pay of the employee can be made by the department at their own motion without any official communication or intimation to the employee concerned and also without any approval of the competent authority? If yes, please provide the relevant rule provisions issued by Govt. of India.Page 1 of 3
5. What was the movement of the personal file of the applicant between 21/10/2009 to 09/04/2010? Whether there is any file movement register is maintained in the office, if yes, please provide a certified photocopy of the same for the period 21/10/2009 to 09/04/2010.
6. Who was the custodian of the file during the period 21/10/2009 to 09/04/2010 and what was the motive to keep the file pending for about 6 months i.e. 21/10/2009 to 09/04/2010.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The information so supplied was incomplete, misleading and no specific as sought in the RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Niraj Kumar CPIO's representative through VC The CPIO's representative stated that the matter has been decided by the Commission vide appeal no. CIC/SM/A/2011/902572 dated 26/11/2012 and the orders have also been complied with vide letter dated 17/12/2012 sent to the appellant.
Decision notice:
As the matter has already been decided the appeal is infructuous. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Page 2 of 3 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 3 of 3