Central Information Commission
Adarsh Kumar vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 9 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi -110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Email: [email protected]
Appeal No.:-CIC/SB/A/2016/000313/CBODT-BJ
Appellant : Mr. Adarsh Kumar
R/o. DB-78/A, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar
New Delhi-110064
Respondent : I. CPIO & Under Secretary, M/o. Finance,
Dept. Of Revenue, Income Tax Department,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
II. CPIO & Under Secretary
M/o. Finance, Dept. Of Revenue, CBDT
460 Hotel Samrat, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-
110021
III. CPIO
Income Tax Officer (HRD)
M/o. Finance, CBDT,
Directorate of Income Tax
(HRD), ICADR Building, Plot No. 6,
Vasant Kunj Institutional Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi- 110070
IV. CPIO
O/o. DGIT (Inv.) ARA Centre, E-2,
Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055
V. CPIO,
CBDT, North Block,
New Delhi
VI. CPIO,
O/o the DGIT (Admn)
Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2017
Date of Decision : 23.02.2017
Date of filing of RTI applications 23.12.2014
CPIO's response 29.12.2014,
26.02.2015,
23.03.2015,
01.04.2015 and
07.04.2015
Page 1 of 3
Date of filing the First appeal 24.03.2015
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of second appeal by the 15.02.2016
Commission
ORDER
FACTS:
The appellant, vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding recruitment rules (Group C & D) of DGIT (Inv.), Delhi as notified by the Department after 2000, whether new recruitment rules/detailed instructions were applicable to the employees of DGIT (Inv.) North or Delhi or not, orders as per which restructuring to the employees of DGIT (Inv.) North or Delhi was undertaken, issues relating to the affidavit filed by the respondent in Delhi High Court in the matter and issues related thereto.
The CPIO and US, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, vide its letter dated 29.12.2014, transferred the RTI application to CPIO, DGIT (HRD), New Delhi. The CPIO and ITO (HRD), New Delhi vide its letter dated 26.02.2015, transferred the RTI application to CPIO, O/o the DGIT (Inv.) on point no. i, iv and x., vide letter dated 26.02.2015 to the CPIO, O/o the Pr.
CCIT (CCA), New Delhi as regards point no. xii. Furthermore, CPIO and ITO (HRD), New Delhi, vide its letter dated 26.02.2015, provided point wise information on the remaining points. However, the CPIO and Dy. Director DGIT, HQ, vide its letters dated 23.03.2015 and 07.04.2015 transferred the RTI application to CPIO, CBDT, New Delhi and CPIO, O/o the DGIT (Admn), New Delhi respectively. The CPIO, o/o the PCCIT, Delhi- 1, Delhi vide its letter dated 01.04.2015 provided information on point no. xii to the appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not available on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Malkiat Singh, CPIO & ITO (M: 9013853352); and Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Inspector O/o DGIT (Inv.) (M: 9968300196);
The appellant remained absent during the hearing. The respondent informed that the appellant is working as Tax Assistant in the D/o Revenue. It was submitted that in similar cases, the Commission vide its order no. CIC/SB/A/2016/000312-BJ + CIC/SB/A/2016/000314-BJ + CIC/SB/A/2016/000315-BJ dated 06.02.2017 had pronounced its judgment. In the present instance, point-wise reply had been furnished to the appellant on 26.02.2015, consequent upon the transfer of the RTI application from the concerned authorities. In addition, the CPIO had further clarified the position on certain points vide their letter dated 01.04.2015. Primarily, it was noted that the issues involved in the RTI Page 2 of 3 application pertains to the cadre restructuring carried out by the D/o Revenue, thus allegedly affecting the terms and conditions and promotional opportunities of the cadre of employees to which the appellant belongs. The service related grievances cannot be considered under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as they necessarily need to be examined and decided by the appropriate competent authority after due diligence. The respondent informed the Commission that vide his letter dated 30.11.2016, he had offered inspection of documents but the appellant did not appear.
The Commission noted that FAA had not heard and decided the appeal under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is highly objectionable.
The appellant was not present to contest the submission of the respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondent, no intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. To facilitate the availability of documents desired by the appellant, the CPIO is instructed to facilitate inspection within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, if he so desires.
The FAA is also advised to examine the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and ensure its compliance within the stipulated time period, which is the duty and the responsibility entrusted to the FAA. The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3