Central Information Commission
Arun vs Ut Of Puducherry on 22 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/C/2024/637874
Arun ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Department of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms, (Personnel
Wing), Chief Secretariat,
Puduchery - 605001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2025
Date of Decision : 21.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.06.2024
CPIO replied on : 04.07.2024
First appeal filed on : 04.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.08.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.08.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 07.06.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. DP&AR(PW) passed order vide I.D Note No.A.49011/06/2024/DPAR/CCD(2), dated 04.06.2024 requested to furnish the details of staff who are working in other departments/offices on service placement basis, in connection (a) kindly furnish all the details Page 1 of 6 of the soft copy received by DP&AR(PW) from all the Head of Departments.(b) also furnish me the hard copy with true/certified copies as per the RTI provision. Note: Kindly send me the softcopy to my email address.
2.I submitted representation to CVO on 22.12.2023 along with the order copy the Divisional bench of Madras high court established that the regularization made in PTU is fault but in the Note file the official not concealed my representation submitted to CVO on 22.12.2023 but highlighted the RTI which I applied, in connection furnish the following information, 2(a) Provide information whether the aforesaid representation received/read by the Chief Secretary-cum-CVO.2(b) if yes furnish the copy of that.2(c) Provide administrative reason u/s 4(1)(d) for concealed the aforesaid representation in note file.2(d) Name and designation of the official who put up the note file and concealed the aforesaid representation.
3. Kindly provide the name, designation, contact email id of all officials working under the chief Vigilance officer in their office (vigilance). Note: Divisional bench of Madras court order not reflected in note file regarding the engagement made in PTU is fault which is established in order and the recruitment rule for helper (ie, Article 309 in Constitution of India) which is also concealed in note file with intention and it is dereliction or negligence of duty conferred upon the official so I need the above information in transparency and accountability to file a fresh complaint to CVC, New Delhi along with the Recruitment rule, order of the Divisional bench of Madras high court and the details of the official who concealed the facts in the notes which mislead the Chief Secretary led to a wrong decision being made (Corruption and irregularity committed will not come under job duties, execution of the required tasks and performance of an employee. But they are purely a misconduct/s which is/are to be dealt strictly with Conduct Rules.)"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 04.07.2024 stating as under:
"In respect of Sl.No.1 of your RTI application, the information sought for could not be furnished at this stage since the collection and compilation of requisite details has not yet been completed.Page 2 of 6
The information in respect of Sl.No.2 and 3 of your RTI application has already been furnished by the PIO, Chief Vigilance Office, Puducherry on
03.07.2024"
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 05.08.2024, held as under:
"The PIO informed that the compilation process was over. Hence, the PIO is directed to supply the available information free of cost to the applicant within 15 days. With this the first appeal stands disposed."
4. In compliance of FAA's order the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 08.08.2024 to the appellant as under:
"In pursuance of the directions of the Under Secretary to Government- cum-First Appellate Authority vide reference second cited, copy of the relevant ID. Note (four page) containing the details of staff whose services are placed on "Service Placement basis" to other Departments, is enclosed herewith.
Encl. dated 28.06.2024 is as under:
The details of service placement of officials / staff in all the Departments /Autonomous Bodies / Corporations / Societies sought for vide reference first cited are furnished in the Annexure enclosed."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri M. Senthil Kumaran, Superintendent and PIO present through Video-Conference.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Complainant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the above-mentioned RTI application and instant complaint and submitted Page 3 of 6 that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
8. During the hearing, the Respondent clarified that at the time of earlier reply by PIO, the information was still being compiled which has now been completed and accordingly, volunteered to facilitate inspection of relevant records to the Complainant in their office and take copies on payment of requisite fees, as the information sought is voluminous in nature.
Decision:
9. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Complainant on his above-mentioned RTI application.
10. Now, being Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."Page 4 of 6
11. However, taking the contentions of the Complainant as stated in his complaint and taking liberal view in the matter and also as volunteered by the Respondent, the Commission advises the PIO to facilitate an opportunity of inspection of the available and relevant records as sought in the above-mentioned RTI application to the Complainant or their authorized representative on a mutually decided date & time within six weeks. The Respondent is further directed to arrange all relevant files (as per RTI application) at one place before calling the Complainant for inspection. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Complainant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record, the PIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
12. Copy of documents that the Complainant or their authorized representative desires during the inspection shall be provided by the PIO on payment of requisite fees as per RTI Rules.
13. No further relief can be granted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, (Personnel Wing), Chief Secretariat, Puduchery - 605001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)