Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

O P Gautam vs Department Of Telecommunications on 9 October, 2019

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            क य सच  ु ना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                              Decision no.: CIC/DOTEL/A/2018/172421/01795
                                          File no.: CIC/DOTEL/A/2018/172421

In the matter of:
O P Gautam
                                                             ... Appellant
                                      VS
CPIO & Director (Staff - II)
Department of Telecommunications,
20, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi - 110 001
       &
Central Public Information Officer
MTNL, Corporate Office,
6th Floor, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Sadan,
9 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
                                                            ... Respondents
RTI application filed on          :   07/09/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   27/09/2018
First appeal filed on             :   03/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
Second Appeal dated               :   13/12/2018
Date of Hearing                   :   04/10/2019
Date of Decision                  :   04/10/2019


The following were present:

Appellant: Present alongwith Achchhey Lal Respondent: Surya Prakash, Director(Staff-II) and CPIO, DoT and Sandeep Kumar, APIO alongwith Suresh Chand, PIO(HR), MTNL, all present in person.

Information Sought:

1
The appellant in his second appeal has mentioned that he is not satisfied with the reply provided to him on point No. 3(ii) and 3(iv) of the RTI application, which are stated as below:
3(ii) Seniority list of TES Group 'B' officers circulated by MTNL on 05/03/2009, subsequent to 05/02/2009 and alternatively, a certified copy of corrigendum issued, if any, by MTNL/DoT realising their mistake in mentioning the correct date while providing information to the Hon'ble Minister to answer the USQ No. 3452.
3(iv) Rules/instructions/orders either of Government or Hon'ble Court of law, indicating specific para/rule(s) which ever prevented the DoT/MTNL authorities from placing the SC officers in the Seniority List in question in order to satisfy the condition laid down in para 3 of the DoP&T OM No. 20011/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 21/01/2002, issued pursuant to 85th Amendment Act, 2001.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant contested the reply on points no. 3(ii) & 3(iv) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 27.09.2018 & 28.09.2018.
Observations:
It is noted that the appellant is aggrieved that no reply has been provided to him on points no. 3(ii) & 3(iv) of the RTI application after their transfer from DoT to MTNL. However, the CPIO, MTNL submitted that both of these points had been adequately replied to on 28.09.2018 in which they have stated that such information is not available in any material form.
With regard to point no. 3(ii), the appellant had sought a copy of the Seniority list of TES Group 'B' officers circulated by MTNL on 05.03.2009, subsequent to 05.02.2009 alongwith a copy of corrigendum issued by MTNL/DoT realising their mistake in mentioning the correct date while providing information to the Hon'ble Minister to answer the USQ No. 3452. The officers present during the hearing clearly mentioned that no such corrigendum or any revised seniority 2 File no.: CIC/DOTEL/A/2018/172421 list had been issued by them. The CPIO, MTNL is directed to provide an additional reply to the appellant after going through the relevant records again and if no such information is found, a categorical reply be given which should be self explanatory .With regard to point no. 3(iv), the Commission accepts the reply of the CPIO .

Decision:

In view of the foregoing, the CPIO, MTNL is directed to provide a revised reply to point no. 3(ii) as discussed above, to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. He is also directed to send a copy of the reply dated 28.09.2018 to the appellant by way of speed post within 3 days of the receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.


                                             Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
                                     Information Commissioner (सच
                                                                ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत          त)


A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
 दनांक / Date




                                        3