Central Information Commission
D Uma Shankar vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 20 June, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CAGIN/A/2023/110168
D Uma Shankar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
O/o The Accountant General (Audit), ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Saifabad, Hyderabad
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.09.2022 FA : 04.11.2022 SA : 25.02.2023
CPIO : 06.10.2022 FAO : 30.11.2022 Hearing : 18.06.2024
Date of Decision: 19.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Whether Audit Generals audit team noticed the following financial/service irregularities while conducting the audit of Environment Protection Training and Research Institute (EPTRI) and incorporated any such irregularities in their reports from time to time.Page 1 of 4
(i) Whether audit team noticed Consolidation of Pay Scales of regular employees against to the Government approved rules to EPTRI. Whether audit team verified the entries made in the service registers of regular employees from time to time?
(ii) The service benefits of regular employees approved by the Government and implemented the same by the Board of Governors approving for example LIC Linked Group Gratuity and Group Superannuation Scheme - whether these are implemented to the death while in service employees/retired employees/and whether continuing in the cases of in service candidates?
(iii) Whether the Audit team noticed about the GO MS No. 40 EFS&T (FOR-6) dated 23-06-2009 wherein superseded all the Government orders earlier approved to EPTRI which includes Sanction of posts, Cadre strength, Service Rules and Service Regulations of EPTRI. Whether audit team noticed the above GO if so what are the observations of the Audit team on the Regular employee service benefits?
(iv) Whether audited team verified the payment of monthly salaries to all employees (Regular and contract) in accordance to the competent authorities/approved pay structure. In this regard, the observation may please be furnished.
(v) A representation is submitted to The Accountant General, Office of the Principal Accountant General (E and RSA), Hyderabad - 500 004 on 7-7-2020 to verify the irregularities. In this connection if any action initiated, please be furnished a copy of the same.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i: Information sought is in the nature of query. As per RTI Act, only information available can be furnished. However, copy of Compliance Audit Report of EPTRI for the year 2010-11 is herewith enclosed.
ii: This information pertains to EPTRI Page 2 of 4 iii & iv: As mentioned at Sl. No. 01 v: July 2020 was the period when the entire country had been recovering from lockdown on account of Covid Pandemic. Many employees were attending office on alternate days/working from Home. So, there was lot of disturbance in the Office front. In view of the above, the representation dated 07.07.2020 was not readily traceable in the concerned sections. Hence, no information in this regard can be furnished at present.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.11.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.02.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. D Raj Shekar, Dy. Accountant General, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that his RTI application was rejected as the information sought was in the form of a query. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 06.10.2022. He further submitted that the queries raised by the appellant were not covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, available information had been provided to the appellant. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the appellant, he said.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 06.10.2022. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the appellant had sought some clarifications and opinion from the CPIO which may not fall within the Page 3 of 4 definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011 wherein following observations were made:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
9. In view of the aforementioned observation, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 19.06.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act)
O/o The Accountant General (Audit),
Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004.
2. D Uma Shankar
Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)