Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

D K Gupta vs Ordnance Factory Board on 18 February, 2019

                                के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                          बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No :CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/103130/SD

DK Gupta                                                   ....अपीलकता/Appellant
                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10A, S K Bose road,
Kolkata - 700001.                                    ... ितवादीगण /Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   12/10/2017
CPIO replied on                   :   13/11/2017
First appeal filed on             :   16/11/2017
First Appellate Authority order   :   23/11/2017
Second Appeal dated               :   08/01/2018
Date of Hearing                   :   15/01/2019
Date of Decision                  :   15/02/2019

Information sought

:

The Appellant sought copy of complete file noting and approval for issue of charge memo 13024/21/vig.II/ofb/2014 dated 24.09.2015.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Ms. Ranjita Rashmi, Director & CPIO, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata present through VC.

Commission asked the CPIO to explain her reply stating the unavailability of information as Appellant in his Second Appeal has appropriately challenged it on the grounds that a Chargesheet cannot be issued without approval and if there has been an approval, there ought to be file noting(s) for the same.

CPIO submitted that she provided the information as per inputs received from the concerned DPIO but before hearing she again got the facts checked from the DPIO in which process it has been intimated to her that the Chargesheet was issued by DDP and not the Board. She regretted that this information could not be provided to the Appellant earlier and agreed to abide by the order of the Commission.

Decision Commission takes grave exception to the conduct of the CPIO and the concerned DPIO in having provided an evasive reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 13.11.2017. CPIO clearly failed to ascertain proper facts from the DPIO and in this case since there is nothing on record to suggest that she took assistance of the DPIO under Section 5(4) of RTI Act, in which case the DPIO could have been deemed as CPIO, the onus remains with the CPIO alone. It was incumbent upon her to assess the veracity of such a vague and incoherent reply before sending it to the Appellant. It is also unnerving to note that the relevant input which could have been gathered by the CPIO well within the stipulated time frame of replying on the RTI Application has been gathered only before the hearing causing unwarranted delay in the provision of information to the Appellant.

Commission admonishes the CPIO and warns her to remain careful in future.

Further, Commission directs the CPIO to now adequately liaise with the concerned holder of information i.e DDP and procure the relevant and available file noting and approval for issue of charge memo 13024/21/vig.II/ofb/2014 dated 24.09.2015 to the Appellant. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission.

File No :CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/103130/SD The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काशिस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ [email protected] हरो सादसेन,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by User Date: 2019.02.18 12:49:00 IST 3