Central Information Commission
Mr.Paritosh Kumar vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 17 June, 2011
ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000719/12927
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000719
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Paritosh Kumar
203, B, Aditya Vikash Complex
Buddha Marg, Patna
Respondent : PIO & RPFC-II
Employees Provident Fund Organization Head Office, 14 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066 RTI application filed on : 04/10/2010 PIO replied on : 28/01/2011 First Appeal filed on : 03/02/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : Not mentioned.
Second appeal received on : 14/03/2011 Information Sought:
1. Paritosh Kumar, APIC (UJS) preferred an appeal to Chairman, CBT against his suspension on 6/8/2010. The letter was submitted at RO, Kolkata for onward transmission through Proper channel. When was this letter sent to Chairman, CBT? Please provide copy of noting in relation to its forwarding to Chairman, CBT.
2. Paritosh Kumar, APFC (U/S) submitted an application to CPFC for enhancement of subsistence allowance on 06/08/2010. The application was submitted at RO, Kolkata for onward transmission through Proper Channel. When was this letter placed for consideration before CPFC? Supply copies of nothings in file vide which this application was processed at Head Office, EPFO, N.W. Delhi.
3. Please provide copy of nothings vide which Paritosh Kumar, APFC was placed under suspension in the year 2010. Please supply copies of all correspondences in this regard. The copy of investigating report in this matter may also be provided.
4. Please supply copy of minutes of suspension review committee which reviewed the suspension of Paritosh Kumar in the year 2010.Whether extension of suspension without giving charge sheet in 90 days was intimated to authority higher than Disciplinary Authority. lf, yes please provide the copy of reference in this regard.
5. Please provide copies of rules mentioning appointing authority of APFC/RPFC-ll & PFC-l. Please supply copies of notification vide which CBT, authorized appointing authority to them fill in those post.
6. What are DOPT guidelines about constitution of suspension review committee? Please provide copies of all circulars in this regard.
7. What are EPFO guidelines about constitution of suspension review committee? Please provide copy of all circulars in this regard.
8. Whether suspension review committee in EPIO is as per guidelines of DOPT.
9. In how many cases, EPFO/RPFC was respondent in any case filed by M/s Katihar Medical College & Hospital, Katihar in connection with 7A, 7B, 7C & 14 matters since date of coverage to date in High C0urtJEPFAT. Please supply copies of the Final Order of the High Court/EPFAT. If orders not finalized, please intimate the position of the case. Please supply copies of all affidavits; filed by EPFO in High Court/EPEAT in this relation.
10. Is it necessary to get first stage advice to charge sheet an officer pertaining to Group A? Please supply copies of rules regarding this.
Page 1 of 311. In how many cases first stage advice not taken before issuing a chargesheet to a Group, A officer in EPFO from year 2005 onwards? Please give details.
12. Which part of TTA is applicable to a suspended employee of EPFO, whose HQ is fixed other than last place of posting?
13.How many pension claims settled at RO Jalpaiguri in 2009 and 2010(upto SEP 2010).Please provide monthwise details. How many claims settled within 30 days? Monthwise figure may be provided.
14.How many cheques pertaining to A/C no 1,10 and 21 were sent by RO Jalpaiguri in 2009 and 2010(upto SEP 2010).Monthwise details may be provided.
15.Please provide copies of all communication between RPFC and EPI Staff Association Jalpaiguri the year 2009 and 2010(upto SEP 2010).
16.Please provide copies of all communication between RPFCI and Paritosh Kumar,RC(adm.)and Paritosh Kumar.RC(FA) arid Paritosh Kumar,RC(Pension) and Paritosh Kumar in the year 2010 at RD Jalpaiguri.
17.Please provide copies of all communication between RO Jalpaiguri and RC(Exam) HO New Delhi regarding SSA examination after conduct of examination Jalpaiguri.
18. How many establishments were in original jurisdiction of RPFC I on 01/01/2010 for compliance m3tter at RD JPG?Please provide copies of all notings in those files alongwith communication for period 01/01/2(10 to 30/09/2010.
19.Please provide copies of all review notes by ACC,RCI and RC II of Jalpaiguri region in the year 2009 and 2010{upto May 2010).
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
PIO provided the necessary information. Wherever applicable, inspection of document was provided for.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Certain files were not made available due to unspecified reasons.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not provided.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
1. EPFO Head Office was required to provide access to certain documents. These records had been visibly tampered with. The PIO is not empowered to alter the information sought.
2. The information could have been provided and the appellant need not have been called to the ED.
The inaction of the PIO amounts to "refusal to provide complete and correct information u/ Sec. 20' Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Paritosh Kumar;
Respondent : Absent;
The appellant admits that he has been given most of the information and also an inspection of the relevant files. He has shown the Commission copies of certain file notings which has been provided by the PIO in which the signatures of the officers making notings have been blank out. It appears that the PIO is claiming that the officers may be harmed if their names were revealed and has therefore severed these. The Appellant states that the following four files were shown to him:
1- File no. VIG VI (II) 03/VOI II/Vigilance Wing
2- File no. VIG VI (6) 09
3- File no. VIG XII (7) 10
4- File no. VIV XIV (12) 06
The appellant states that he believes that there are some other files which have not been shown to him.Page 2 of 3
The Appellant states that he filed the RTI application on 04/10/2010 and received a communication on 29/12/2010 asking him to pay additional fee of Rs.06/-. Ultimately the information was provided to him on 28/01/2011 after payment of Rs.06/-. Since the Appellant had filed the RTI application on 04/10/2010 he should have received the information before 04/11/2010. The PIO's action of asking for additional fee on 29/12/2010 was not as per the law and there has been a clear delay in providing the information.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The PIO is directed to give a statement to the Appellant that the four files mentioned above which were shown to him were the only relevant records. The PIO will send this statement to the Appellant before 05 July 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 12 July 2011 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 17 June 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (JK) Page 3 of 3