Central Information Commission
Rama Krishna Nelli vs Department Of Telecommunications on 10 September, 2020
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/DOTEL/C/2018/155356
File no.: CIC/DOTEL/C/2018/155356
In the matter of:
Rama Krishna Nelli
... Complainant
VS
1. Director (Finance & CPIO)
Department of Telecommunications (Finance Branch)
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
2. Director (IR-I)/CPIO
Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan,
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
3. Director (IR-II)/CPIO
Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan,
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
4. Sr. DWA (WPC)/CPIO
Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan,
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 05/06/2018
CPIO replied on : 22/06/2018
First appeal filed on : 27/06/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 31/06/2018
Complaint filed on : 07/09/2018
Date of Hearing : 20/04/2020, 08/09/2020
Date of Decision : 20/04/2020, 08/09/2020
The following were present:
Complainant: Present over phone
1
Respondent: Shri Aman Ullah Tak, Director (Finance) and CPIO, Shri Parag Agarwal, Director IR and CPIO, Miss Vandana Sethi, Director and CPIO, Shri M.K Patnayak, Sr DWA (Wireless) and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the copies of the Government of India instructions or DoT instructions which authorise the finance branch of DoT to open separate files instead of rendering their advice in the file initiated and processed by the concerned/section of DoT.
2. Provide the copies of the norms fixed for calculation of Group B, Group C and Group D posts in DoT.
3. Provide the copies of the recruitment rules for filling up the posts in Group B, Group C and Group D posts in DoT.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the complete information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Complainant contested Points 2 to 5 of the reply given to the RTI application. He submitted that the RTI application was unnecessarily transferred to the RTI Cell by the then CPIO Shri Manish Gupta to evade reply. He further submitted that Shri Manish Kumar Gupta, Director Finance & CPIO was also looking after the charge of Director SEA and in-charge of the establishment of finance officers. The SEA section under his control recently conducted examination for appointment of Junior Accountants. As such he is aware the information pertaining to finance officers shall be available with SEA section. But, with mischievous intentions, he had not transferred the RTI application to Director SEA & CPIO in the capacity of Director Finance & CPIO. Being incharge of SEA section, Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta. Director Finance & CPIO is well aware that Director (Estt) & CPIO shall be having the information with regard to the engineering officers. But he chose not to transfer the RTI application to Director(Estt) & CPIO. Even the transfer of application to the Nodal Officer, RTI was not intimated in writing. With all this, the information requested for vide items 2 to 5 was not supplied to the RTI applicant within the prescribed time limits.2
The CPIO Ms. Vandana Sethi submitted that the complaint is with respect to the RTI application nos. DOTEL/R/2018/50456 and DOTEL/R/2018/50456/1 which are not related to the International Relations-I division of which she is CPIO and the said RTI applications have not been handled by her. That the complainant, in para 6 of his communication dated 07.09.2018 (Ref-2) sent to the Commission has mentioned another RTI application no. DOTEL/R/2018/50498/7 as an example of RTI applications earlier transferred by Shri Manish Gupta, Director (Finance) & CPIO to other CPIOs, to put forth his point that Shri Manish Kumar Gupta, CPIO & Director (SEA) DoT was well aware of the procedure of transferring the RTI applications to other CPIOs. The information sought through this RTI application was different from the information sought in RTI applications mentioned in para i) above. It is submitted that the said RTI application received as No. DOTEL/R/2018/50498/8 was disposed of by Shri O. P. Minhas, then Director (IR-I) and CPIO on the RTI Online portal on 23th July 2018 (Action history printout enclosed) mentioning that "Requested information has been provided to the applicant through post being large number of documents". A scan copy of the RTI reply letter no. 8-6/2007-TP Dated 12th July 2018 was also uploaded on the RTI Online Portal (printout attached). iii) That the above submission is made on the basis of available records on the Online RTI portal as access of physical records is not available due to prevailing lock down situation.
Shri Aman Ullah Tak, Director (Finance) and CPIO submitted that a reply was provided by the then CPIO to the present RTI application on 22.06.2018 in respect of point no. 1 of the RTI application. He further submitted that the then DSC (Coord) Shri Ranjan Kumar and the Nodal Officer RTI was transferred the points no. 2 to 5 of the RTI application.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the present Director (Fiannce) could not explain why a point-wise reply was not given to the complainant. In absence of a written explanation from the then CPIO, Shri Manish Kumar Gupta, the present complaint cannot be disposed of. Moreover, the complainant had pressed for penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act against the then CPIO.3
Interim Decision:
The then CPIO, Shri Manish Kumar Gupta is directed to send a written explanation to the Commission within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant requested that an appeal of the identical RTI is pending which may be disposed of in due course. The Commission in the interest of justice and to avoid repeated hearings directs the Registry to follow up the second appeal and get a written submission on appeal also from the present CPIO, Director (Finance) Shri Aman Ullah Tak.
The case is adjourned accordingly.
Date of Hearing: 08/09/2020 Date of Decision: 08/09/2020 The following were present:
Complainant : Not present Respondent : Shri Aman Ullah Tak, Director (Finance) and CPIO, Shri M.K
Patnayak, Sr DWA (Wireless) and CPIO, present over phone Submissions made by the Respondent during the hearing: The Registry informed the bench that there is no other appeal pending before this Commission of the same applicant.
The complainant was not present to plead his case despite duly served notice on 20.08.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED596680615IN. Shri Manish Kumar Gupta vide written submissions dated 20.07.2020 submitted that a para-wise reply to the complaint of Shri R.K Nelli in reference of his RTI application no.s DOTEL/R/2018/50456 & 50456/1 has been sent via e-mail on 29.04.2020 and hard copy of the same could not be sent at that time due to COVID-19/Lockdown causing interruption in postal services. He further requested theCommission to take a final decision after considering his para wise reply on the complaint that was sent on 29.04.2020. He further submitted that all points 1-5 of the RTI application no. DOTEL/R/2018/50456 and 50456/1 dated 05.06.2018 had been suitably replied to by the CPIOs to the applicant and both the FAAs (DDG Finance and DDG E&T) had also replied to his first appeals timely and categorically with a 4 warning not to harass the public authorities with a series of RTI . applications. No further applications or appeals are pending at SEA Wing. He summed up requesting the Commission to dismiss the complaint and warn the appellant to refrain from harassing the public authority.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO submitted the list of RTI applications and the reply provided by them. In view of the same he submitted that it seems that the present appeal of the applicant is also nothing but intended to divert the scarce resources of the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India for unproductive and cadre rivalry purposes, thereby, resulting in compromise of the mandate of the RTI Act for optimum use of limited fiscal resources. Further, in accordance with the principle of res judicata, the applicant has no fresh cause in the mater as the reply has already been provided to the applicant and the applicant has no issue with respect to the substance of the information provided. He further submitted the para-wise reply to the complaint of the complainant as follows:
Para 2& 3 Reply of point no. 1 of the said application had been given to the applicant timely and para 2 to 5 of the RTI application which doesn't pertains to Director (Finance), was transferred to the Nodal Officer for necessary action at their end. The allegations of Shri Nelli are false, baseless and hence denied. He also mentioned that as per DOT letter no. 05-02/2017-SEA-I dated 14.05.2018 it is clear that the undersigned was in substantial charge of Director (SEA) with additional charge of Training of finance personnel in DOT and he was not holding the additional charge of Director (Finance) as wrongfully alleged by the applicant. He further submitted that he had provided a reply to the said RTI on 22.06.2018 as just a link officer of Director (Finance) for timely disposal of RTI as regular Director (Finance) Shri S.R Swain was not available.
Therefore, the incorrect presentation of the factual position is misleading on the part of the applicant.
It is to note that the applicant being a senior DoT employee, could have known jurisdictional fact of the different CPIOs in DoT and Government of India and accordingly could have submitted separate applications to the different CPIOs 5 for expeditious disposal of his application. Nevertheless, the applicant chose to create an additional pressure on the limited resources of the system by combining different CPIOs jurisdiction into one application. However, when the application was received by Shri Manish Kumar Gupta in the capacity of Director (SEA) & CPIO, the information on the same was given in accordance with the RTI Act.
Para 4 & 5 He further reiterated that as stated earlier the facts in para 4 of the said application/complaint are false and beyond the truth. I. It is clear from the DoT order dated 14th May 2018 referred above the undersigned was not in additional charge of Director (Finance) as alleged by the applicant rather he was entrusted with the charges of Director SEA and additional charge of training. The allegations of the applicant that the RTI had been transferred to unconcerned CPIOs is wrong and baseless, on the basis of these transfers he got all the related information from the concerned CPIOs.
II. In DoT as per approval of competent authority a nodal officer of RTI had been appointed for smooth and timely disposal of RTIs hence transferred the same to the Nodal Officer.
III. The facility of online transfer of RTI application was not activated in the portal at that time. However, letter of transfer of application dated 12.06.2018 was uploaded on RTI MIS portal for information.
Para: 6 & 7 As per RTI Act it is an established law and procedure that an applicant can appeal to the FAA if not satisfied with the reply of CPIO. In order to adhere to the RTI Act in letter and spirit, it may not be procedurally appropriate that one CPIO provides replies of the RTI application under the jurisdiction of another FAA since it will create further confusion among government machinery and it would be difficult for the applicant to make an appeal against the CPIOs.
Therefore, the present appeal is nothing but blatant abuse of the process of law and wastage of time and resources of the Government of India with vested and malafide intent on the part of the applicant. All points 1 to 5 had been suitably replied by the CPIOs to the applicant and both the FAAs (DDG Finance and DDG E&T) had also replied his first appeals timely and 6 categorically with warning not to harass the public authorities for serial and series of RTI by similar applicant.
The Commission also received a written explanation dated 14.07.2020 from Shri Amanullah Tak, Director (Finance & CPIO) in which he submitted that the RTI application dated 05.06.2018 contains 5 points, out of which only point no. 1 was related to Finance Section which was replied directly to the applicant. . Accordingly, the RTI application was transferred to RTI Section for forwarding the same to the concerned CPIOs. He also submitted that Shri Manish Gupta the then Director (Finance and CPIO) has been detected with CoVID positive and is under home quarantine.
The Commission after going through the submissions of the CPIOs is of the opinion that points no. 2 to 5 was not replied yet. The CPIO should have informed categorically that no such information is available to avoid this complaint. Unnecessary transfer of the RTI application without knowing the record holder of information led to this complaint. Decision:
The complainant had not availed of the opportunity to contest the submissions of the CPIO. Therefore, the Commission finds no ground for further intervention in this matter.
The present complaint is accordingly closed.
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) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 7