Central Information Commission
Mr. Sandeep Sharma Advocate vs Staff Selection Commission on 20 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2009/000396 dated 20-8-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant: Shri Sandeep Sharma
Respondent: Staff Selection Commission
ORDER
Announced on 20.9.10 By our decision of 20-8-2010 this Commission had directed as follows:
"Admitting the complaint of Shri Sandeep Sharma u/s 18(1) (b) of the Act, the Commission served notice of CPIO, SSC, New Delhi on 23/06/2010. But, as ascertained by the Registry, no comments have so far been received from the CPIO, SSC, New Delhi which indicates that the CPIO has nothing to say in this regard.
The Commission hereby directs the CPIO, SSC, New Delhi respond to the request for information within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this decision to complainant Shri Sandeep Sharma.
The CPIO, SSC, New Delhi is further directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day from the date when the information fell due i.e. 15/05/2009 to the date when the information is actually supplied, not exceeding Rs 25,000/-, should not be imposed on him/ her under Section 20(1) of the RTI act. The CPIO will submit his/her written submission on or before 30/08/2010, failing which the Commission will proceed u/s 20."
Subsequent to the decision we have received a response dated 18-8- 2010 from CPIO, Shri P.C. Tandon, Under Secretary, in which he has submitted as follows:
Complainant Shri Sandeep Sharma had sought information vide his application dated 15/04/2009 pertaining to S.I. (Exe) in Delhi Police Examination, 1994. the point-wise information is as under:-
Point 1: The information regarding total aggregate marks of Shri Sandeep Sharma is furnished as under:-
Name Roll No. Total Marks (for S.I. in Delhi
Police (paper-I&III + Interview)
Sandeep Sharma 1242298 399+48=447
1
Point 2: The total aggregate marks of the last selected
candidate under UR (Open) category are 438 marks. Point 3: As regards the information at point-3 for allowing the complainant, for inspecting the file relating to the case titled as Vijay Pal & Other vs. Union Of India bearing SLP No. 16356, 16358 and 24653 of 1996, and supply him certified copies of relevant documents, Shri R.K. Arora, under Secretary/ CPIO, Northern Region, Staff Selection Commission/ CPIO is being advised to provide the information directly to the complainant as Regional Office, Northern Region is the custodian of said court case.
Consequent to our notice of 10-9-2010 and in following up the order of 20-8-10 the matter was heard on 20-9-2010. The following are present:
Respondents:
Shri Nityananda Ray, U.S. Smt. Usha Malhotra, S.O. Ms. Usha Malhotra, S.O. SSC submitted that although the application in this case had been received, there is no record of disposal by the then CPIO Shri A.K. Agrawal. However, the information sought by complainant Shri Sandeep Sharma has now been provided. This Commission has also received no rejoinder to the information provided in CPIO's response to the complaint notice, a copy of which was also endorsed to complainant Shri Sandeep Sharma.
DECISION NOTICE:
In this case there has indeed been a failure of the SSC to respond to an RTI application. Nevertheless the CPIO Shri A.K. Agrawal has since retired from Government service and it is not the practice of this Commission to hold an officer liable for penalty after superannuation. Although, therefore, there will be no penalty in this case the Director, SSC is advised to review the procedure for receipt of RTI application to ensure that no such default occurs in the future.
The information sought by complainant now having been provided this complaint is disposed of. Nevertheless, complainant Shri Sandeep Sharma is advised that should he still not be satisfied with the information provided he is 2 free to move an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, SSC Shri Shiv Kumar Gandotra, Dy. Secretary under Section 19 (1) and if not satisfied with the response received from 1st appellate authority he will be free to move second appeal before this Commission u/s 19 (3) of the Act..
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this Decision be given free of cost to the parties (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 20-9-2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 20-9-2010 3