Central Information Commission
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs Union Public Service Commission on 30 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. - CIC/WB/C/2009/000482 dated: 28.10.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 18 (1)
Complainant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), New Delhi.
Decision announced on 30 Jul 2010
Facts:
By an application dated 12.10.2009 Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma of GTB Enclave, Delhi sought information from the Central Public Information Officer, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi, on the procedure for fixing of ratio among two feeder cadres for promotion to a particular post, along with attested copies of all Circulars/Office Memorandum/Orders in that regard. In his response of 20.10.2009 CPIO, Shri R. S. Raghavan, UPSC, New Delhi informed the complainant that the "guidelines in respect of prescriptions of the method of recruitment of fixation of ratio of any two feeder cadres etc. are issued by the Department of Personnel & Training and the same is taken into consideration by the UPSC." Hence CPIO advised the complainant to approach to DoP&T to obtain the necessary information. The complainant was of the opinion that the CPIO has acted against the provision of Section 6(3) (i) of the RTI by not transferring his application to the concerned CPIO within 5 days of the receipt of the application and on this ground this complaint has been filed before us and the plea taken by the complainant for filing this complaint directly to the Commission is not intimating the name of 1st appellate authority by the CPIO in his response dated 20.10.2009.
Admitting the complaint of Shri Sharma, the Commission served notice on CPIO, UPSC, New Delhi, on 24.06.2010 for furnishing comments on the complaint. In response, CPIO, Shri R. S. Raghavan, submitted his comments on 02.07.2010 with a copy endorsed to the complainant. The CPIO, in his comments, has reiterated the same as was stated in his response dated 1 20.10.2009. He has, however, informed that the copy of the application of the complainant along with the copy of response was also forwarded to the DoP&T on 20.10.2009. The CPIO has further expressed his regret for not informing the name and details of 1st appellate authority of UPSC and has indicated the same in his comments, however, he has pleaded that the details of the appellate authority of UPSC is available on the website of the Commission. On the other hand the complainant Shri Sharma has also filed his rejoinder to the comments pleading as follows:
1. the CPIO's plea "...that the applicant had sought information mainly on the procedure for fixing of ration among two feeder cadres without specifying number of post, scale of pay, etc..." means that had the complainant mentioned the number of posts, scale of pay, etc., the UPSC could have provided the information.
2. In consonance with the provisions of the Act, if the UPSC thinks that the matter was more closely related to DoP&T, the application seeking information ought to have been transferred to the concerned CPIO.
3. There was no mention regarding sending the copy of the complainant's application to the DoPT in the response dated 20.10.2009 of the CPIO. However, the complainant has not received any response from DoP&T.
4. CPIO's plea that the details regarding FAA of UPSC are available on website of the Commission, there is no provision under any Section of the Act to refer to websites of the Public Authorities for preferring the first appeal before the Appellate Authority and such a facility is not available to all citizens of the country."
Decision Because the 1st appellate authority has not addressed the questions of the appellant, the Commission would in the normal course have decided to remand this appeal to the First Appellate Authority, UPSC, New Delhi to dispose of the complaint of Shri Sharma by treating it as an appeal u/s 19(1). However, in this case the complaint is straightforward, and that is that CPIO has failed to adhere to the provisions of Sec 6(3) of the Act. Each of the statements put by complainant Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma and quoted by us at 1 to 4 above is correct in law. CPIO Shri R. S. Raghavan has failed on two counts:
2(i) In adhering to the requirements of Sec 6(3) (i). Simply endorsing a copy of the response provided by CPIO UPSC to CPIO of the DoPT cannot be deemed a transfer, and has therefore evoked no response from CPIO, DoPT
(ii) In adhering to the requirement of Sec 7 (8) (iii). In this, however, the CPIO cannot be held to have violated the law, since the information sought has not been "rejected", when such communication becomes mandatory The question now arises as to whether CPIO has by this default rendered himself liable to penalty. Sec 20 requires imposition of penalty in the following instances:
(a) Refusal to receive a bonafide application
(b) Failure to provide information within the time mandated
(c) Malafide denial of the request
(d) Knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information
(e) Destruction of information that is the subject of the request
(f) Obstructed furnishing of information In the present case, the information not being held by the UPSC, CPIO had no information to give, which he has intimated to complainant Shri Sharma within the mandated time. The only cause for penalty might have been (c) above, but CPIO Shri Raghavan has apologized most profusely for the4 lapse as there being no "willful denial" of information. Therefore, while upholding this complaint, the application of Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma is transferred to the CPIO Ms Pratima Tyagi, Under Secretary, Cadre Review Division, DoPT with the recommendation that it might be responded to within the shortest possible time to compensate complainant for the loss of time in the processing of the original.3
Announced on this, the thirtieth day of July 2010 in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner) 30.07.2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(PK Shreyaskar) Jt. Registrar 30.07.2010 4