Central Information Commission
Shri Ranjeet Ashok Solanki vs Cantonment Board, Pune (Mod) on 16 June, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00623-SM dated 26.10.2006
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 16 June 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ranjeet Ashok Solanki, C/o Prakash Jeevan Solanki, Opp. Poona College, Pune.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Cantonment Board, Pune (MOD) The Appellant was represented by Shri Pathak.
On behalf of the Respondent, Smt. D.D. Modak, was present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
The Appellant had requested the CPIO on 26 October 2006 for some information regarding the service records of his deceased father and details of the payments made to the legal heirs after his death. His request for information was transferred to the Chief Accountant/CPIO on 31 October 2006. Thereafter, the said CPIO wrote to him on 6 December 2006 and informed that on verification, no office record in the name of Shri Ashok Jeevan Solanki as mentioned in his application was found. Not satisfied with this reply, he filed an appeal before the Chief Executive Officer and Appellate Authority in which he suggested that they might also search for the records of Ashok Jumman Solanki, an alias by which father was also known. The Appellate Authority decided his appeal in his order dated 16 January 2007 and held that as per the Index Register maintained in the office of Cantonment Board, no file existed either in the name of Shri Ashok Jeevan Solanki or Shri Ashok Jumman Solanki. However, he also directed the CPIO to conduct a thorough search of the records once again and furnish the information to the Appellant within 15 days. It seems the CPIO again wrote back to the Appellant that she conducted a CIC/WB/A/2007/00623-SM search but found no record relating to such names. The Appellant has filed his second appeal against the orders of the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority.
2. During the hearing conducted through videoconferencing, both the parties were present in the Pune Studio of the NIC. The Appellant drew our attention to the fact that the Chief Executive Officer and the first Appellate Authority of the Pune Cantonment Board had not responded to the communication from the CIC dated 6 October 20008 seeking his comments on the appeal. It is deplorable that the Pune Cantonment Board failed to send its comments on the appeal even after ten months after being asked to do so and it shows their utter lack of seriousness in the matter of right to Information.
3. It is also very strange that the Public Authority deputed a retired employee of the Organization to appear in this case instead of the current CPIO. Even if the CIC notice had been issued in the name of Smt. D.D. Modak, CPIO and Chief Accountant as this was the name known to the CIC, it was not desirable that the Public Authority should have summoned a retired employee to appear in this case. It was the duty of the current CPIO to have informed the CIC about the retirement of Smt. Modak in the meanwhile and to have been present himself during the hearing.
4. Smt. Modak submitted that her reply to the Appellant was based on the feedback she had received from the relevant Section of the Cantonment Board which had reported that no service record or file existed in the name of the deceased father of the Appellant, whereas she admitted that during her long years of service, she had heard about this particular employee and had also met him once when he was alive. This shows how casual the Public Authority is in dealing with the Right to Information cases. In any Public Authority, information about a former employee could be found out by looking at several records, such as, Acquaintance Roll, Leave Registers, Seniority Lists, etc. Even if this particular person had passed away a long time back, the authorities concerned could have tried to find out about him from one or the other CIC/WB/A/2007/00623-SM relevant records or documents only if they had tried hard and should not have so casually dismissed the request by stating that no record in this name existed.
5. In the background of the above circumstances, we give the following directions to the CPIO:-
(i) to search for any reference in the name of the deceased father of the Appellant in various records and files of the Public Authority once again;
(ii) if any record is traced, then to find out if the service records and other details sought by the Appellant could also exist; and
(iii) if such records are finally traced, then to provide copies of these records to the Appellant within 15 working days from the receipt of this order.
6. We also direct the CPIO to explain in writing within ten working days from the receipt of this order why he chose not to be present during the hearing and why he deputed a retired employee of the Cantonment Board to appear instead.
7. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/WB/A/2007/00623-SM