Central Information Commission
Sushil Kumar vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 13 December, 2019
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
Decision no.: CIC/BSNLD/A/2018/141703/02343
File no.: CIC/BSNLD/A/2018/141703
In the matter of:
Sushil Kumar
... Appellant
VS
GM (HR/A) / CPIO
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
O/o CGMT, Sanchar Sadan,
Budha Marg, Patna - 800 001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 26/03/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 28/04/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 26/06/2018 Date of Hearing : 12/12/2019 Date of Decision : 12/12/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Suresh Prasad, AGM (Admin) and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with regard to Graduate Apprentice Training:
1. What action has been taken by the department in regard to NHRC Case No. 2488/4/26/2017 dated 19/09/2017.
2. Why SC candidates are tortured during training.
3. Whether the youth will be empowered by harassment during training.
4. And other related information.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant through e-mail dated 11.12.2019 submitted that due to some personal work he is not able to report for the Video Conferencing. He further stated that he had not received any reply.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided on 23.02.2019. He further submitted that the then CPIO was Shri S.K Chaurasia. On a query by the Commission he submitted that he is not aware who the CPIO was in March 2018. He further submitted that he is not in a position to explain delay as he was not the then CPIO.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it is noted that an apt reply was given to the appellant. However the fact remains that the reply was delayed. The CPIO is not well prepared with the facts of the case. He should have had the details of the then CPIO readily available, who was posted at the time of filing of the RTI application. Moreover, the delay was also not explained. Decision:
The Commission expresses extreme displeasure over the state of affairs in the Respondent office as it appears that the concerned CPIO is not aware of the statutory provisions of the RTI Act which requires a timely reply. A strict warning is issued to the CPIO for not being prepared with the facts of the case. Further, the then CPIO Shri S.K Chaurasia is issued a strict warning for the delayed reply. A copy of this order shall be served to Shri Chaurasia by the present CPIO. In so far as the reply dated 23.02.2019 is concerned, the same is treated as proper. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 2 File no.: CIC/BSNLD/A/2018/141703 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3