Central Information Commission
Prasenjit Bose vs Staff Selection Commission on 26 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SSCOM/A/2023/111968
Prasenjit Bose ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission
(Eastern Region) 1st MSO
Building (8th Floor), Nizam
Palace, 234/4, A.J.C. Bose
Road, Kolkata - 700 020 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25/07/2023
Date of Decision : 25/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/12/2022
CPIO replied on : 18/01/2023
First appeal filed on : 20/01/2023
First Appellate Authority order : 15/02/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/03/2023
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2022 seeking the following information:
1) Please provide copies of all file noting & correspondence related to issuance of letter No. A-19018/1/2022-E-II dated 14/10/2022 by SSC, Hqrs. to SSC, ER.
Copy is enclosed. Whether SSC, Hqrs, has received y further response from SSC, ER in pursuance to aforesaid correspondence dated 14/10/2022-E-11. Whether SSC, Hqrs has issued any reminder to SSC, ER in this regard to ascertain the status of the case.
2) Whether SSC, Hqrs. is in receipt of any communication in this regard from DoP&T. If yes, what action is taken by SSC, Hqrs.
3) Whether the guidelines issued by SSC, Hars. for regulating Aadhar Based Biometric Attendance System of its employee through its Circular dated 31/07/2019 bearing reference F. No. A-48011/1/2021-Estt.1, is mandated to be adhered in all the Regional/Sub-regional offices of the Commission by all level of its employees.
4) If yes, whether the same guidelines is considered/followed while evaluating the Aadhaar based Biometric Attendance of Shri Prasenjit Bose in letter & spirit for the period from 01/03/2022 to 26/08/2022 while rendering 47 days of Unauthorized absence considering as EOL without Medical certificate.
5) Under which provision of the extant rules, the Regional Director, SSC, ER is empowered to evaluate Aadhaar Based Biometric Attendance of an employee for 06 months on a whole. Whether any such practice is also followed in SSC, Hars. & in other regional/sub-regional offices of the Commission other than SSC, ER.
6) Whether SSC, ER has taken into consideration the biometric attendance of all its employees including the Regional Director, ER while arriving in the above decision in my case.
7) Please provide the photocopies of all file noting & correspondence related to above referred matter bearing under F.No. A-37011/28/2022-Admin.
8) Please provide the total amount of recovery in rupees. Whether the recovery is done in terms of DoP&T OM No. 18/26/2022-Estt (Pay-1) date 06/02/2014.
9) Whether SSC, ER has taken any action in pursuance to aforesaid SSC, Hars letter No. A-19018/1/2022-E II dated 14/10/2022. Whether SSC, ER is le receipt of any further communications in this regard from SSC, Hars. If yes, copies of all those communications may be provided.
210) Whether SSC, Hars has issued any further communication to SSC, ER on this matter post issuance of its aforesaid letter No. A-19018/1/2022-E-dated 14/10/2022 if yes, please provide copies of all those documents.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.01.2023 stating as under:
"It is informed that Memorandum no. A-A.37011/28/2022-Admin dated 29.08.2022 & 08.09.2022, as mentioned in the RTI application were issued as per the prevalent Rules and Guidelines. As for information pertaining to the amount recovered, the same has been communicated to Shri Prasenjit Bose vide the monthly payslip and the Last pay certificate".
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.01.2023. FAA's order dated 15.02.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Aloke Kumar Nandy, DD & CPIO present through video conference.
The CPIO invited the attention of the bench to a point-wise response provided to the Appellant prior to the hearing vide his written submissions dated 24.07.2023 stating as under:
"(1) &(2) The information sought is not available with the SSCER. (3) & (4) Yes.
(5) Vide SSC(Hqrs) Circular No. A-24012/3/2015-Estt. II dated 15/01/2016, Regional Directors of Regional Offices of SSC are the Sanctioning Authority to sanction all kind of leave (including CCL) to all officers/officials of that region.
Accordingly, The Regional Director of SSC(ER) is competent to review the attendance marked by employees posted in SSC(ER).
(6) Yes.
(7) All relevant information pertaining to action taken by the Regional Director regarding late coming to office on 47 days out of 56 days Shri Prasenjit Bose attended office at Nizam Palace, has been provided to him vide the counter Affidavit provided to Shri Prasenjit Bose in OA No. 350/2038/2022 in the matter of 3 Prasenjit Bose Vs Union of India & Others. It is further informed that since the case is sub-judice, and that all relevant information has been shared with Shri Prasenjit Bose through Counter Affidavit, further disclosure of Notings may adversely affect the stand of SSC in OA No. 350/2038/2022 in the matter of Prasenjit Bose Vs Union of India & Others. Hence, noting in this regard has not been shared.
(8) As for information pertaining to the amount recovered, the same has been communicated to Shri Prasenjit Bose vide the monthly pay-slips and the Last Pay Certificate.
(9) & (10) Yes. SSC(ER) had received Letter No. A-19018/1/2022-E-II dated 14/10/2022 and CP/1/2022-EII dated 24/11/2022 from SSC(Hqrs) pertaining to this matter. A reply was accordingly sent to SSC(Hqrs) vide letter No. A- A.37011/28/2022-ADMIN dated 01/12/2022 providing complete details of the matter, a copy of which has already been provided to Shri Prasenjit Bose as `Annexure R' of counter Affidavit provided to Shri Prasenjit Bose in OA No. 350/2038/2022 in the matter of Prasenjit Bose Vs Union of India & Others."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO grossly erred in providing in a rather evasive reply to the instant RTI Application at the first instance in as much as none of the points therein was specifically answered and no reasons have been mentioned for omitting to reply on these points. Moreover, the CPIO has invested the efforts in preparing a point-wise reply at this stage when the appeal has come up before the Commission, which effort should have been invested at the original instance itself. It is further pertinent to note that even through the reply of 24.07.2023 fails to provide a reply that is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act as the CPIO has arbitrarily denied to provide information on the pretext that the records have been provided to the Appellant with reference to a CAT matter and the CPIO has not even bothered to invoke any exemption clause of the RTI Act.
The Commission takes grave exception to the conduct of the CPIO in the matter and as a CPIO of long standing in SSC, he is expected to display minimum standards of responding to a RTI Application which includes providing a point-wise reply where the applicants seek information through various points.
The Commission will be compelled to take stringent action against the CPIO in the event such lapses recur in the future.4
Further, the CPIO is directed to send a revised point wise reply to the Appellant on points 1,2,7,8,9 & 10 of the RTI Application incorporating the specific available information. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to redact such information which may be hit by the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act i.e to redact names and particulars of officers who have tendered file noting(s), if any. The averred revised reply of the CPIO shall be provided to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
No relief is being ordered on points 3,4,5,6 as the information sought for through these points require clarification to be provided by the CPIO which is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and as such, the revised reply of 24.07.2023 provided by the CPIO suffices these queries.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5