Central Information Commission
Vellaipandi vs Standardization, Testing And Quality ... on 2 September, 2021
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
File no.: CIC/STAQC/A/2020/614973
In the matter of:
M Vellaipandi
... Appellant
VS
1.Central Public Information Officer
Standardization Testing and Quality
Certification Directorate (STQC)
Min. Of Electronics & IT, Electronics Niketan,
6, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003
2. CPIO
Electronics Test and Development Centre &
Centre for Reliability
STQC Dte. DEITY, Thiruvanmiyur
Chennai - 600041
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 20/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 28/03/2018 First appeal filed on : 04/01/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 23/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 01/09/2021 Date of Decision : 01/09/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Heard over phone
Respondent: Dr. R Muthukumar, Director & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the information:1
1. Provide the details of Earned Leave (EL)/Medical Leave availed/applied by G. Chennakesavulu, Scientist-F & Director i/c, ETDC/CFR, Chennai along with copy of sanction by the competent authority for the period from 01-09-2014 to 21-11-2017.
2. Provide the details of the official tour performed by G. Chennakesavulu, along with sanction by the competent authority for the period from 01-09-2014 to 21-11-2017 in the format below:
Nature of official tour Places visited Duration
3. Provide the duty/assignment details of G. Chennakesavulu, as Auditor/Trainee auditor & as onsite test engineer for various ISMS/SDC Audits/onsite testing during the period 01-09-2014 to 21-11-2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide any information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as complete information was not provided to him particularly on point no. 2 and no order was passed by the FAA till date. He prayed that penalty may be imposed on the concerned CPIO for deliberately denying the information to him. The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submissions in which he had stated that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 28.03.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that even though a point-wise reply was given to the appellant whereby some part of the information was supplied to him, however, for the other part of the information including copies of the EL forms and copies of the tour assignments, the same were not disclosed.
With regard to point no.2, it is noted that a copy of the list of tours performed by the above mentioned person, sanctioned and approved by the competent authority was given to the appellant on 28.03.2018. For the other part, the information was denied as the same contained S & T assignments.
Even though the reasons given by the CPIO for its non-disclosure are justified, however, no exemption was claimed by the CPIO. The CPIO should note that 2 denial of any information should be under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. Further, the reply was also highly delayed and provided after the second appeal was filed and as per the available record, no order was passed by the FAA.
The Commission expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the concerned CPIO for handling the RTI application in such a casual manner and denying the information without claiming any exemption as per the provisions of the RTI Act. This shows that the concerned CPIO is not aware of the provisions of the RTI Act.
With regard to the non-disposal of the first appeal by the FAA, it is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, an appeal under sub- section(1) or (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. From a plain reading of this section, it is clear that it is incumbent upon the FAA to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated time period. Non- disposal of the first appeal in any organisation not only deprives the appellant of his right to get a formal order on his appeal but also adds to the burden of the Commission being the Second Appellate forum. The Commission expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the concerned FAA for not disposing of the first appeal in the instant matter.
Be that as it may, since the remaining information is covered u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, no relief can be given to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the concerned CPIO is issued a warning to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and to ensure that proper exemptions are claimed, if any information is to be denied and the timelines are also followed. The CPIO should note that if any such lapse is repeated in future, the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him.
Further, since the FAA has failed to exercise his quasi-judicial powers, the Commission, therefore, cautions the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of the merits of each case. A copy of this order is marked to the concerned FAA for his information. The CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order on the 3 FAA immediately upon the receipt of the order. He is also directed to ensure strict compliance of this order in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु 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 Copy to:
1.First Appellate Authority Standardization Testing and Quality Certification Directorate (STQC) Min. Of Electronics & IT, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003 4