Central Information Commission
Santosh Kumar Mishra vs Department Of Ex-Servicemen Welfare on 19 January, 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/DEXSW/A/2020/691861
In the matter of:
Santosh Kumar Mishra
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS)
Central Organisation, ECHS Adjutant General's Branch,
IHQ Mod Army, Thimaya Marg,
Near Gopinath Circle, Delhi Cantt.-110 010
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 15/08/2020 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 16/09/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 09/11/2020 Date of Hearing : 18/01/2022 Date of Decision : 18/01/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Lt. Col Neelesh Ingle/CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to ECHS:
1. Provide a copy of any written order/directive/policy which allows ECHS functionary to score out the name of beneficiary from temporary slip and refuse to provide treatment on account of mismatch of name in Aadhaar. In such a situation the beneficiary whose name has been scored out and is awaiting correction in his/her Aadhaar, facing any emergent health issue what course of action is envisaged to get medical attendance and the reimbursement of expenses incurred thereupon.1
2. The maximum time limit specified for making the availability of prescribed medicine was not issued to the patient due to the non-availability of the same in Polyclinic. During the said period the management of the patient in the absence of prescribed medications may be elucidated.
3. Any set of rules held with ECHS specifying the disciplinary/administrative action to be initiated against the delinquent officials of ECHS irrespective of his/her hierarchy position in the organization
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that no reply has been given to him till date.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 04.06.2021.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that even though a point-wise reply alongwith all the relevant enclosures was given to the appellant on 04.06.2021, however, the same has been inordinately delayed.
On a query to the CPIO as to why such a delayed reply was given, he submitted that the delay was purely unintentional and occurred due to the spread of Corona virus which hampered the core functioning of almost every organisation. The Commission even though agrees with the submissions of the CPIO ,however, this in no way explains the delay of almost 10 months in providing the relevant information to the appellant.
The Commission therefore expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the CPIO for such handling of the RTI application.
Decision:
In view of the above, the concerned CPIO is advised to remain careful while handling RTI applications. Had he been more careful and vigilant, this delay in 2 giving a reply could have been avoided. The CPIO is therefore advised to be more careful in future while handling RTI applications and in case of any such lapse in future, the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु 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