Central Information Commission
Amarnath Singh vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 30 July, 2021
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंग नाथमागग, मुन नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CAGIN/A/2019/645987
CIC/CAGIN/A/2019/645857
Shri Amarnath Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
O/o the Comptroller & Auditor General of India
Date of Hearing : 27.07.2021
Date of Decision : 30.07.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
645987 02.04.2019 - 22.05.2019 - 19.07.2019
645857 31.03.2019 03.05.2019 26.05.2019 - 18.07.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/CAGIN/A/2019/645987 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.04.2019 seeking information on the following 03 points:-
1.
a. Judgment of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court or/and the Act of Parliament whereby the Department of Expenditure has accorded financial approval to the Para 5.6.6 if the case is not fully covered by powers conferred upon the CAG by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re - appropriate funds.
b. Prior financial concurrence of the Ministry of Finance to the Para 5.6.6 for its implementation by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in the IA&AD if the case is not fully covered by powers conferred upon the CAG by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds.
c. General or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance to confer powers upon the CAG to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re -appropriate Page 1 of 4 funds for implementation of the Para 5.6.6 if the case is fully covered by the powers conferred upon the CAG by these general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re - appropriate funds.
2. a. Judgment of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court or/and the Act of Parliament whereby the Department of Expenditure has accorded financial approval to the Para 5.6.6 if the case is not fully covered by powers conferred upon the CAG by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re- appropriate funds.
b. Prior financial concurrence of the Ministry of Finance to the Para 5.6.6 for its implementation by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in the IA&AD if the case is not fully covered by powers conferred upon the CAG by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds.
Or c. General or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance to confer powers upon the CAG to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or reappropriate funds for implementation of the Para 5.6.6 if the case is fully covered by the powers conferred upon the CAG by these general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re - appropriate funds.
Etc. Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.05.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved over non receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/CAGIN/A/2019/645857 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.03.2019 seeking information on the following 03 points:-
1.
a. Requisition for the Section Officer (Audit) Examination-2006 sent by the O/o the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to the Staff Selection Commission.
b. Requisition received in the O/o the Comptroller and Auditor General of India from the O/o the Principal Director of Audit/East Central Railway/Hajipur to fill up the vacancy I was recruited and appointed against.
2. a. Judgment of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court or/and the Act of Parliament whereby the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, in the Para 5.6.6 of its Manual of Standing Orders (Admn) Vol I (Third Edition), flagrantly disregards these rulings of the Supreme Court and counts the Page 2 of 4 seniority of the Direct Recruits in the AAO cadre/erstwhile SO (A) cadre in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department from the date of their confirmation and not from the date of their appointment to the post. b. Decision or advice previously given by the Department of Personnel and Training that covers the provisions of the Para 5.6.6 and that is why the instructions the DOP&T O.M. No. 20011/5/90-Estt (D) Dated 4.11.1992 contains are not binding on the CAG in respect of the service matters of the persons serving in the IA&AD.
OR c. Decision or advice given by the Department of Personnel and Training on the matters concerning the provisions of the Para 5.6.6 when consulted upon by the CAG if no decision or advice previously given by the Department of Personnel and Training covers the provisions of the Para.
OR d. Mandate(s) whereby the CAG has not complied with the instructions of the DOP&T O.M. No. 20011/5/90-Estt (D) Dated 4.11.1992 in respect of the service matters of the persons serving in the IA&AD if neither any decision or advice previously given by the Department of Personnel and Training covers the provisions of the Para 5.6.6 nor the DOP&T has ever been even consulted upon by the CAG.
Etc. The CPIO vide online reply dated 03.05.2019 replied as under:
a. Copy of Supreme Court order dated 29.03.2007 on appeal (Civil)5013 of 2000 (M Srinivasa Prasad & Ors vs the C&AG of India & Ors) is being sent through registered post for information.
b. to d. No such information is available with this Public Authority.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.05.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing Written submissions have been received from the Appellant and the CPIO cum Dy Director (Legal), C&AG, New Delhi in Second Appeal No. CIC/CAGIN/A/2019/645987 vide letters dated 24.07.2021 and 23.07.2021 and the same have been taken on record.
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant and the CPIO cum Dy Director (Legal), C&AG, New Delhi in Second Appeal No CIC/CAGIN/A/2019/645857 vide letters dated 24.07.2021/ 26.07.2021 and 23.07.2021 and the same have been taken on record.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Page 3 of 4The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that there has been a substantive delay in providing the information in both the matters. Furthermore, reasons for administrative decisions should be provided in compliance with Section 4 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005. He also referred to the reply provided in point 1 (b) of the RTI application under consideration in Appeal No CIC/CAGIN/A/2019/645857 and stated that in case the information was not available with the public authority, the said point should have been transferred to the concerned public authority u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Respondent represented by Ms A Fani Rao, CPIO and Dy Director (Legal) participated in the hearing through audio conference. While apologizing for the delay in the reply, she stated that the information held and available on their record has been provided to the Appellant. She further stated that interpretation and explanation was outside the purview of the definition of information as per the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since the provisions of the Act only require the CPIO to provide the information as per available record and not to provide reasons not recorded in writing, explanations, opinion and clarification. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. The Commission however cautions the Respondent to ensure that replies to RTI applications are provided within the stipulated time period in future matters failing which penal action under the RTI Act, 2005 may be initiated.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4