Central Information Commission
Mr.Pole Pandurang Shankarrao vs Dept. Of Post, Osmanabad on 6 February, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/09/00052
Dated February 6, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mr.Pole Pandurang Shankarrao
Name of the Public Authority : Dept. of Post, Osmanabad
Background
1. The Appellant filed an RTI request dt.13.7.07 with the CPIO, Dept. of Post, Osmanabad. The Appellant sought following information:
i) The officer who has no power to give appointment to GDS BPM, if such officer has suspended to GDS BPM who will give permanent confirmation to such suspension and how many days and on which date such correspondence being made.
ii) In how many days the charge sheet is being framed against charged official. The information should be given with relevant rules.
iii) After issuing charge sheet, in how many days inquiry should be completed and what is the limit for submission of inquiry report. This information is required with reference to ruling.
iv) In how many days the SPOs takes the decision on inquiry report submitted by inquiry officer. The information may be given with ruling
v) Which are the aspects being kept in mind by SPOs while giving punishment to charged official. The information to be furnished with relevant rules and guidelines.
The CPIO replied on 13.8.07 denying the information under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. The Appellant filed an appeal dt.4.9.07 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for information. The Appellate Authority replied on 18.1.08 stating that information is not exempt from Section 8(h) and directed the CPIO to intimate the details of relevant rulings on the subject of appointments and disciplinary matters related to GDS staff with no. of pages and cost of supply of the same within a week from the date of receipt of this Order. He also directed the CPIO to answer the queries which are clear but unanswered and supply that information free of cost within a week from the date of receipt of this order. Based on the Apellate Authority's decision, the CPIO provided point wise information on 25.1.08. Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed an appeal dt.28.3.08 with the Appellate Authority stating that even after directions of the Appellate Authority CPIO has provided inadequate information with regard to points 2 to 4. The Asst. Director of Postal Services directed the CPIO to supply information requested quoting relevant rules to Appellant free of cost without any further delay. The CPIO replied on 22.7.08 supplying copies of relevant rulings related to disciplinary matters of GDSBPM. The Appellant filed a second appeal dt.29.10.08 before the CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on February 6, 2009.
3. Mr. Babu Marutt Kamble, representing Appellate Authority and Mr. Babusha C Mali, representing CPIO were present at the hearing.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Commission reviewed the information provided and noted that all available information have been provided to the appellant and accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mr.Pole Pandurang Shankarrao C/o Mamta Niwas B/H Sheetal Hotel Vyas Nagar Naldurg Tal. Tuljapur Osmanabad 413 602
2. The CPIO Department of Post Osmanabad Division Osmanabad 413 501
3. The Appellate Authority & Director Postal Service Department of Post O/o Post Master General Aurangabad Region Aurangabad 431 002
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC