S Radha vs Directorate General Of Quality ... on 16 February, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S Radha vs Directorate General Of Quality ... on 16 February, 2021

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                             केंद्रीय सच
                                       ु ना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
                             Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                           File no.: CIC/DGOQA/A/2019/107232
In the matter of:
S Radha
                                                                ... Appellant
                                             VS
1.CPIO /Dy. Dir(Adm - 6A),
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production,
Dte General Quality Assurance, Adm 6A,
Room No 69, H Block, New Delhi-110011
      &
2. Central Public Information Officer,
Department of Defence Production,
Defence Standardisation Cell CQA (EE) Complex,
Aundh Camp, Pune-411027
                                                                ...Respondents

RTI application filed on          :   06/09/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   18/09/2018
First appeal filed on             :   04/10/2018

First Appellate Authority order   :   19/12/2018
Second Appeal dated               :   13/02/2019
Date of Hearing                   :   16/02/2021
Date of Decision                  :   16/02/2021

The following were present:
Appellant : Not present

Respondent: Shri Lala ji Dogre, Principal Scientific Officer & PIO, Department of Defence Production, Pune, present over VC & Sheo Badan Yadav, Directorate General Quality Assurance, New Delhi, present over intra VC.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to the placement posts of DQAS cadre mentioned at Sl Nos (d), (e) and (f) in MoD order No. 17(2)/2007/D(QA) dated 06/12/2007:

1. Copy of hierarchical relationship among the posts mentioned in the said order.

2. Copy of duties and responsibilities of the above posts in descending order.

3. Copy of superseding order, if any, to the above MoD letter dated 06/12/2007 post CCS(RP) Rules 2008 and CCS(RP) Rules 2016.

4. Copy of order on change in the reporting responsibilities after the recommendation of 6th CPC and 7th CPC.

5. Copy of revised pay scales after implementation of 6th CPC in order of hierarchy.

6. Copy of revised pay scales after implementation of 7th CPC in order of hierarchy.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the sought for information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The notice of hearing sent to the Appellant vide speed post no. ED656549090IN dated 02.02.2021 was returned by the postal authorities on

02.02.2021 with the remarks "Addressee left without instructions". The appellant too has not made any effort to send any written communication to the Commission updating her address in case she has changed the same. It is also found that in his other cases also, the notice of hearing was returned to the Commission as undelivered because of the same reason. In view of this, the Commission is not in a position to send any further intimation to the Appellant in this regard for want of an alternate correspondence address in the records. In the interest of justice, the case is being decided on merits.

In her second appeal memo, the appellant had stated that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO who had stated that the information is not available. She further submitted that the information sought is closely connected with the functioning of the Organization and it ought to be available in possession of the Public Authority, since no organization can function without a defined structural hierarchy of the cadre and the assigned charter of duties relative to each post in the Cadre.

The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 18.09.2018.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a suitable reply was given to the appellant on 18.09.2018. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the said reply. Hence, no further relief can be given to the appellant, moreso, when the appellant herself was not present to plead her case.

Decision:

In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO dated 18.09.2018 and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter The case is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission