Central Information Commission
Mr Manuj Modi vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 23 April, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000068SS
April 23, 2014
Complainant : Shri Manuj Modi
Respondents : Office of the Director General of Audit
(Central Expenditure), New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2014
ORDER
The present complaint dated 18.06.2013 [arising out of earlier appeals (dated 10.12.2012) of the Complainant (Shri Manju Modi) which were decided by the Commission vide its decision dated 06.05.2013; No. CIC/SM/A/2013/001740 & CIC/SM/A/2013/000068] was taken up for hearing on 23.04.2014. The Respondents were present through Shri Saurabh Shukla, Director (Admn.) and Shri V.K. Dubey, SAO (Admn.). The Complainant was present in person.
2. The aforesaid decision of the Commission, to the extent relevant, reads as under:
"3. Referring to some special audit done by the CAG of the office of the NTRO during which the latter had provided a copy of his biodata to the former after suppressing a part of it, the Appellant had sought a CIC/SM/A/2013/000068SS Page 1 of 5 2 number of information/clarification including the details of the composition of the audit team. The CPIO had declined most of the information on the ground that it related to NTRO, an organization exempted from the operation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act under section 24(1). The Appellant had preferred an appeal against the response of the CPIO. The Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal by reiterating the stand taken by the CPIO....
7. Now, coming to the various requests made in the RTI applications, we are of the view that the CPIO should revisit the relevant records including the file noting and find out if there is any information which has been exclusively generated by the CAG and its officers in respect of the Appellant's queries without extracting, directly or indirectly, any information provided by the NTRO and, in case that is so, to provide the same to the Appellant within 10 working days of the receipt of this order. Needless to say, no information provided by the NTRO, in whatever form, should be disclosed......."
3. In pursuance of the above directive of the Commission, the CPIO vide his letter dated 23.05.2013 furnished pointwise reply to the Appellant corresponding to his RTI applications (dated 08.06.2012 and 30.07.2012)-- subject matter of the appeals, which were decided by the Commission vide its aforementioned decision.
4. The Complainant in his present complaint has now alleged that the "despite the CIC's directive, no information has been provided." He has therefore demanded that an inquiry be conducted into the matter.
5. During the hearing, the Complainant states that at present he is contesting the CPIO's decision in respect of only point No. 5(a) of his RTI application dated 30.07.2012. The information sought by the Appellant in this point reads as under:
"Copy of the application/biodata in respect of the undersigned's appointment as Sc 'F' in NTRO, that was used by the C& AG to record their findings."2
6. The CPIO's reply to this point after the Commission's order reads as under:
"As per Second Schedule under Section 24 of RTI Act, NTRO is exempted from the purview of RTI Act and the information sought cannot be furnished.
7. The CPIO, Shri Saurabh Shukla however, during the hearing, informs the Commission that the bio data of the Complainant as sought by him in this point is found to be unavailable in their records, when checked, although it was available in the records earlier. According to him, this fact (unavailability of Complainant's bio data) came to light only when they started searching for records related to the Complainant's RTI applications following the Commission's order, and therefore it could not be brought to the Commission's notice at the time of deciding the appeals of the Complainant. He also mentions that the document in question (Complainant's bio data) was a part of a "sealed record", which they had opened only at the time of searching for records as per the Commission's order. He also informs that an inquiry committee has already been constituted by the public authority in the matter (4 months back).
8. The Complainant, on his part, suspects foul play in the matter and alleges tampering with his bio data.
9. Since the public authority has already constituted an inquiry committee in the matter, no separate inquiry need be initiated by the Commission in the present matter. The CPIO is however directed to communicate the outcome of inquiry to the Complainant on its completion. In the event, the document in question (Complainant's bio data) is traced, the CPIO should consult the third party/holder of CIC/SM/A/2013/000068SS Page 3 of 5 4 information i.e. NTRO under section 11 of the RTI Act and take a decision on disclosure of this information to the Appellant afresh.
10. Complaint is disposed of with the above directions.
(Sushma Singh) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Address to the Parties
1. Shri Manuj Modi 471 Sec 37 Noida 201303
2. Shri Saurabh Shukla Central Public Information Officer (RTI) & Director (Admin.) Office of the Director General 4 of Audit (Central Expenditure) AGCR Building, Indraprastha Estate New Delhi 110 002 CIC/SM/A/2013/000068SS Page 5 of 5