Central Information Commission
Sundaresan vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 25 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/659166
Sudaresan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO,
Lokpal of India
6 Phase-II, Vasant Kunj
Institutional Ara, New Delhi-110070 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/07/2023
Date of Decision : 24/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 12/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 05/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 07/10/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2022 seeking the following information:-
"The CPIO and FAA of Lokpal have different explanations on why my electronic complaint by email in February 2020 prior to Lokpal Complaint Rules were not considered The complaint included complaints with Ms. Nidhi my legal aid counsel a paid servant of SCLSC Ms. Atreyee Das and Ms. Valsamma Thomas and others at CAG fraudsters public servant Mr Debashsish Mitra presently president 1 ICAI Mr. Arvind Madhav Singh of MDONER and NERAMAC and Mr Kalbande of NERAMAC all conspiring to aid and abet fraudsters and perpetrate fraud on people of India as a part of the scheme of fraud perpetrated over several decades including my suppressing maintenance of false books of accounts for decades etc and there is no explanation at all in the annual report of Lokpal for 2019-20 placed before parliament . Name of the person responsible for this misleading report to Parliament may pls be furnished as explained in the attached file such a fraud has mushroomed and financial implications for annual report fraud under NHB Act for DHFL only has exceeded Rs 50000 crores"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 12.08.2022 stating as under:-
"With reference to your online RTI application registered vide Registration number-LOKPUR/E/22/00180. it is hereby intimated that under the RTI Act.2005 public authorities are not supposed to give explanation or clarification. The Public Authorities are supposed to provide information which is in the record of the concerned office. In the 1u Appeal, the First Appellate Authority sometimes provides some supplementary information, if not supplied earlier.
If you were not satisfied with the reply of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), you could go for second appeal before Hon'ble Central Information Commission within the stipulated time. Raising the same issues again before the CPIO is not desirable.
As regards. Annual Reports are concerned, the same were prepared by the Lokpal of India after due deliberation / consideration at every level in the Lokpal of India."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2022. FAA's order, dated 07.10.2022 is as under:-
Kindly refer to your online RTI First Appeal (Registration No. LOKPL/A/E/22/00027) dated 05.09.2022 w.r.t. your KO application (Registration No. LOKPL/R/E/22/00180) dated 10.07.2022 under the RTI Act, 2005.
In this regard, it is intimated that I have gone through the entire records available and noted that the CPIO & US, Lokpal of India has provided the requisite information available/ maintained in this office. Since the information sought is factual in nature, it is reiterated that the Annual Report was prepared by the Lokpal of India after due deliberation/ consideration at every level in the Lokpal of India. Now, therefore, the present appeal dated 05.09.2022 is disposed of."2
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"The Lokpal is an anti-corruption body established pursuant to UN CAC and Lokpal Act and is a public authority and is thus bound by RTIA .
2) The Lokpal as in several acts provides for annual reports to parliament .
The annual report of Lokpal for several years hosted at the web site of the Lokpal was visited and examined. No statement was made in the annual report of Lokpal for 2019-20 on the following;
• Why complaint forwarded electronically prior top Lokpal Complaint Rules were not considered and defects not pointed out to me were not reported to parliament.
3) Thereafter on 1.10.2022 I have executed an affidavit vide the said Complaint Rules and posted Complaint 1/2022 to Lokpal on 3.10.2022 and several other complaints are envisaged.
4) The application was made 14.7.2022 - the response of the CPIO included that the statement that "sometimes the FAA provides additional information "
5) However in the said case where the FAA furnished conflicting information , as explained in CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/638377 and CIC/DOP&T/C/2022/639507;
• The FAA said complaints not considered due to multiple complaints and also that due to shifting of office electronic complaints were misplaced • The CPIO stated due to shifting of office electronic complaints were misplaced
6) Both the reasons as stated by the FAA ie multiple complaints and also that due to shifting of office electronic complaints were misplaced are mutually exclusive and contradict each other
7) The statement by the CPIO and FAA that due to shifting of office electronic complaints were misplaced is an impossibility as in physical shifting the electronic records and electronic records in the cloud and / or servers are not lost .
8) the first para of the CPIOs response is unwarranted unnecessary and beyond his brief.
9) The Lokpal's site does not host suo motto disclosures --- and the CIC has not ensured the same and not reported in its annual reports to parliament . Search carried out at the Lokpal's site on " Right " and "RTI' took me nowhere .
10) Thus who is responsible for annual reports under Lokpal Act and under Sec 25(2) RTIA is not disclosed under Sec 4(1)(b)(ii) of RTIA 11 ) The response of the CPIO is not at all clear and neither is the FAA --- the person responsible would appear to be the Lokpal - but the CPIO and FAA are adding prefixes suffixes etc etc .
312) The annual report to Parliament and to people cannot be taken so lightly as to attempt to avoid responsibility of any one person in the organisation - admittedly the head of the organisation is responsible but responsibilities for misstatements etc cannot be avoided by stating "after due deliberations at every level " - further the annual reports hosted at the web site of Lokpal have their forewards signed by the Lokpal and thus he is responsible for annual report - the information is thus misleading."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Prateek Sharma, CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant and CPIO was being heard in continuation of two other cases filed against the Respondent office vide File Nos. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/638377 +CIC/DOP&T/C/2022/639507. The submissions were taken on record in the averred connected case and were deemed adequate for the instant case as well.
Decision:
The instant case is squarely covered by the decision in File Nos. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/638377 +CIC/DOP&T/C/2022/639507, therefore no separate line of adjudication is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4