Central Information Commission
R. Mascomani vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 12 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2023/135783
R. Mascomani ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Personnel & Training,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.05.2023 FA : 17.05.2023 SA : 14.06.2023
CPIO : 17.05.2023 FAO : 30.05.2023 Hearing : 17.10.2024
Date of Decision: 11.11.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"Please provide the specific information / clarification on Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. (updated as on 19.09.2022)
(i) Please inform who are 'such Government Servant' referred under Rule 63 (2)(a) above
(ii) Please clarify whether Rule 63(2)(a) is applicable to only to those Government servants refereed 63(1)(a) and (b) Page 1 of 8
(iii) Whether both the actual amount of leave salary (Rule 63(1)) and study leave conversion to regular leave (Rule 63 (2) (a) are applicable to all government servants referred in 63 (1) and 63 (2)
(iv) Validity of Bond and its contents executed under Form 7 [ See Rule 53 (4)] Bond to be executed by a Government Servant in permanent employment, when proceeding on study leave."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"I am to refer to your application made under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPI0 is required to provide only such information under section 2{f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority. It is stated that under the provisions of the RTI Act, clarification, opinion & suggestion cannot be provided. With regard to your RTI application the CPO has no other information to furnish in material form except Rule 63 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 as updated on 19.09.2022 has already mentioned in your RTI application. It is further, informed that Orders of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 available at www.dopt.gov.in-Notification-Orders- Establishment-leave ."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 30.05.2023 stated that:
"(i) It is noted that Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 is defined as: 2 (f) "information"
means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force".
(ii) In this context, attention is also drawn to Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [c] no. 7526/2009] Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors dated 9th -2- August, 2011.
Page 2 of 8In para 35 of the judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court had dealt with Section 2 (f) and 2 (j) and Section 3 of the RTI Act as below :
'The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions.' Leave & Allowance Division of the Department of Personnel & Training deals with Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 and sundry allowances. Appellant has sought clarification and interpretation of situation-specific information which may not be available and existing in the Division. The CPIO, in his reply, has provided weblink of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 which relates to Rule-63 also and Form-7 for information. Therefore, CPIO has provided information which is available and existing, in the spirit of the statutory provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, creation of information, drawing of inference, making of assumptions, interpreting the hypothetical questions and deducing some conclusion from the 'material' information are outside the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005, CPIO has provided you requisite information available with him in material form for more information you may visit DoPT website at www.dopt.gov.in- Notification-OMs&Orders-Establishment ."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.06.2023.
Page 3 of 85. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Jata Shankar Kanth, US & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant stated that he wants some clarification from DoPT regarding applicability of study leave rules to his organization which he believes is governed by CCS Rules.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that as far as his wisdom goes, CCS Rules is not applicable to Appellant's department i.e FCRI.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has neither sought for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act nor has he agitated any grounds that is amenable to the mandate of the RTI Act under second appeal. The CPIO has appropriately replied to the RTI Application leaving for no scope of intervention in the matter.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE Page 4 of 8 vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
Page 5 of 8"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. Furthermore, the Appellant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:Page 6 of 8
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
9. Having observed as above, no relief or action is warranted in the matter.
10. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 11.11.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 7 of 8 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO M/o. Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, US & CPIO (L & A), North Block, New Delhi -110001
2. R. Mascomani Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)