Central Information Commission
Shribalram Srivastava vs Department Of Posts on 5 June, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001016/5265
05 June 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Balram Shrivastava
P.A. C.P.U. Lucknow
P.O. Building, New Hyderabad,
Lucknow-226007, U.P.
Respondent : CPIO
Department of Posts
O/o the Chief Postmaster General
Lucknow GPO-226001
CPIO & Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Lucknow Division
Lucknow-226007
RTI application filed on : 25/09/2012
PIO replied on : 07/11/2012 & 25/10/2012
First appeal filed on : 24/11/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 21/12/2012
Second Appeal dated : 26/03/2013
Information sought:
The appellant has his SB account no. 1191796 standing in the books of New Hyderabad SO opened on 27/08/2001. The applicant has been issued letters by Chief Postmaster GPO, SPM New Hyderabad SO, SS Postal Division to deposit different amount by treating said SB account number wherever applicant always requested to update the amount by calculating and adding admissible interest year to year pending since opening.
The applicant therefore request to provide following information under RTI Act:
I- How much interest have been added in said SB account if none why and who is responsible for this?
II- How the said account is being treated minus balance without calculation of this for years pending and without updating the SB account? III- What is the genuineness of enquiry when applicant has been directed to deposit different amount as minus balance?
IV- What action has been taken on the enclosed letter by SSPO (letters dated 04/07/2012, 29/05/2012 by ADPS SB & 27/04/2012).Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Balram Shrivastava through VC Respondent: Mr. A K Mishra CPIO through VC The CPIO stated that the information requested by the appellant has been supplied. The appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply and wants copies of the underlying vouchers vide which the two debit entries (viz. Rs.2000/- and Rs.2100/-) & one credit entry (viz.Rs.2000/- ) originated. The CPIO stated that as per the record retention policy the vouchers are preserved for a period of six years and it is possible that the information has been weeded out.
Decision notice:
The Commission directs the CPIO to carry out a thorough search and furnish copies of the vouchers as aforesaid to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. If, however, the vouchers have been weeded out an appropriate affidavit should be filed before the Commission and a copy endorsed 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