Central Information Commission
C Suresh vs Accountant General Of India on 18 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal Nos. CIC/CGACT/A/2017/138637
CIC/ACCGI/A/2017/134447
Appellant: Mr. C Suresh
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
O/o The Accountant General
(Economic & Revenue Sector Audit),
Thiruvananthapuram-695001, Kerala.
Date of Hearing: 17.01.2018
Dated of Decision: 17.01.2018
ORDER
Facts:
CIC/CGACT/A/2017/138637 CIC/ACCGI/A/2017/134447
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 13.10.2016 seeking certified copy of the posting order of Smt. P. K. Remani; date when she had assumed charge; service records of Smt. Remani while she was working in the RSA wing;
details of cash award/certificate received by Smt. Remani; absentee statement relating to supervisors which was prepared by Sr. AO/CAI etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 11.11.2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 14.12.2016. The FAA responded on 10.01.2017. The appellant filed second appeal on 07.06.2017/23.05.2017 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
Hearing:
3. Both the parties participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
Ms. Subhalaxmi (CPIO) participated through VC. The written submission sent by the CPIO was taken on record. Both of them agreed to hearing of these cases together, as the subject matter is identical in nature.
4. The appellant stated that there is a delay of 5 days in furnishing the CPIO reply. Therefore, penalty should be imposed on the respondent. Further, he stated that the respondent should provide him the sought for information. In addition, he stated that an employee belonging to the SC category was harassed in her office, wherein, she was not provided the necessary amenities like table, chair etc. for discharging her official duties. In this respect, he had made a complaint to the SC cell.
5. The respondent stated that the sought for information is a third party information, which they have denied to the appellant as per the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, she stated that consent of the third party was sought, and she had refused to part with the information. Moreover, the respondent stated that they had furnished a timely reply to the appellant, wherein, the RTI application was received on 14.10.2016 and the CPIO reply was given to the appellant on 11.11.2016. Discussion/ observation:
6. The action/steps taken by the respondent in giving response to the RTI application is satisfactory. Further, the Commission observed that no malafide is involved in the matter in furnishing the CPIO reply. Decision:
7. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
These appeals are disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar