Central Information Commission
Ramu Prasad Prajapati vs Ordnance Factory Board on 16 December, 2022
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
File no.: - CIC/OFBKO/A/2021/660603
In the matter of
Ramu Prasad Prajapati ... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Ordnance Equipment Factory (OEF),
(A Unit of Troop Comforts Limited)
Phool Bagh, Kanpur - 208001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 06/10/2021 CPIO replied on : 25/10/2021 - Not on record First appeal filed on : 02/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 30/11/2021 Second Appeal dated : 14/12/2021 Date of Hearing : 15/12/2022 Date of Decision : 15/12/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Anil Kumar Yadav, Joint General Manager and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant in his second appeal has sought information on points No.3, 4 and 5 of the RTI application, which are stated below:
3. Provide a copy of the noting prepared at OEF for taking opinion of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Kolkata, in the matter of promotion of Examiners from back date.
4. Provide copies of the applications submitted by the appellant from time to time to the L.B. Deptt for promotion as HS-2.1
5. When an employee becomes eligible for promotion, whether the trade test is taken by OEF of its own or the concerned employee has to request the OEF for the conduct of the trade test? Provide copy of the relevant rule in this regard.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal contested the reply on points no. 3 to 5 as incomplete. He further submitted that in point no. 3 notesheets from page nos. 1 to 10 should be given as the same is also related to him. The CPIO contended that legal opinion of third parties is also present in those notesheets. Furthermore, the same needs to be examined before disclosing any further information.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 12.12.2022 submitted that the appellant had sought copies of documents in all the points of his RTI application dated 06.10.2021. Accordingly, the CPIO vide the letter dated 23.10.2021, requested the appellant to submit fees for photocopy of documents - Rs. 30/- (15 pages x Rs. 2/- per page). The appellant submitted the aforesaid photocopy fees on 25.10.2021 and the CPIO, thereafter provided him with the photocopies of the documents vide the letter dated 25.10.2021.
He further submitted that in respect of point no. 3 the appellant had requested to provide him the note sheets related to seeking opinion of the Ordnance Factory Board for granting backdate promotion to examiners. The relevant note sheets (note sheet no. 11, 12 & 13) were provided to him. Now, during the hearing, the appellant is asking for copies of all the note sheets which are not relevant to the information sought. In respect of point no. 4 he stated that the appellant has been provided with the copy of his application dated 03.02.2017. In respect of point no. 5 the CPIO clarified that the appellant has sought information which pertains to interpretation of rules/ Govt. orders which is not in the scope of RTI as per the RTI Act. However, the appellant has been provided with the relevant rules for his perusal and information. Observations:
It was noted that the First Appellate Authority after perusal of the records of the case, upheld the reply of the CPIO vide order dated 29.11.2021. As far as 2 the written submissions of the CPIO is concerned, the CPIO had further clarified the points. As the appellant pressed for note-sheets from page 1 to 10 and the CPIO took the plea that the same contains legal opinion of the third parties, the CPIO shall re-examine the records and provide the copies of the sought for note sheets after masking the third parties' details u/s 10 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO shall provide a revised reply on point no. 3 as discussed above within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. As far as point's no. 4 and 5 are concerned, the same were suitably replied to by the appellant.
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) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3