Central Information Commission
Mrkausik Ray vs Department Of Posts on 18 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2015/000204/9748
18 February 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Kausik Ray,
Postal Assistant,
Serampore HPO - 712201
Respondent : CPIO / Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Post,
O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
South Hooghly Postal Division.
Serampore - 712201
RTI application filed on : 14/11/2014
PIO replied on : 10/12/2014
First appeal filed on : 15/12/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 07/01/2015
Second Appeal dated : 15/01/2015
Information sought:
1. Name and designation of the official maintaining Service Books of Postal Assistants at Serampore HPO.
2. Date from when he has been working in that branch.
3. Date of receipts of my petitions dated 04/02/2013, 18/03/2014, 15/07/2014, 14/08/2014, 22/09/2014 and 07/11/2014 by the concerned official as at item no. 1 above.
4. What action is taken by Sr. Postmaster, Serampore HPO for delinquency of the said official in resorting to such obstinate delay on his part?
5. Whether such delinquency and non-action against him can be cited as an instance by any official in future for being let off for any unintentional, and even intentional, lapse in timely discharging his duty?
6. What are the conditions, guidelines and occasions for issuing communications under service registered post to any official in an office/establishment by another branch of the same office? Can it be taken as loss of revenue?
7. Up-to-date duplicate copy of service book along with leave account of mine as on 14/11/2014 is requested for supply to me in accordance with Rule 257 of GFR.
8. Timely and proper supply of the two items as above would have saved valuable manpower and stationery and postage costs of the department taking into consideration my earlier correspondences and this ultimate recourse to RTI Act, In view of the same, what guidelines are prescribed in the rules to deal with such negligent officials?
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. P K Dey CPIO through VC M: 09903358809 The CPIO stated that the appellant's RTI application dated 14/11/2014 was responded vide letter dated 10/12/2014 and the reply was upheld by the FAA vide order dated 07/01/2015. He submitted that the appellant was asking for copy of his service book but same could not be furnished as the records were not updated at that point of time. The appellant vide his mail dated 09/02/2016 has intimated that he has taken VRS and does not need the information anymore.
Decision notice:
The appellant has taken VRS and does not need the information.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2