Central Information Commission
Shri Tejpal Solanki vs Central Public Works Dep’T (Cpwd) on 6 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00702 dated 28-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Tejpal Solanki
Respondent: Central Public Works Dep't (CPWD)
FACTS
By an application of 26-12-06 Shri Tejpal Solanki of Village Shahbad, Mohammadpur, New Delhi, applied to the CPIO, CPWD seeking the following information:
1. "Please intimate the number of sanctioned posts of Wiremen as on 1998 in the Department.
2. Please intimate the number and names of Wiremen who have retired from 1998 to 2004, and why vacant posts have not been filled up.
3. (i) Shri Surinder Singh son of Shri Kapur Singh DLYCED-I Delhi
(ii) Shri Jagbir Singh, s/o Shri Ramkishan, SICHED Delhi
(iii) Shri Ram Kumar s/o Shri Lakshman Singh, PWDED VII, Delhi
4. Whether the promotion of Wiremen was done as per rules or not.
The seniority of the applicant is 24-9-92 whereas above mentioned Wiremen's seniority as per DOPT was 7-5-97.
5. In spite of being the senior the applicant was not promoted, then why the above three Wiremen were promoted where the departmental enquiry was done in respect of them. If so, then given the name, designation and address of the Investigating Officer.
6. What action has been taken by the Investigating officer? If any official is found guilty as per inquiry that what action has been taken against them, please give details.
7. When the applicant will be promoted as Wiremen.
8. Whether those employees were holding Competency Certificate- I as on 1998 that have been promoted. If that is the case, give the name and addresses of those employees. If they were not holding such certificates then why they were promoted before me.
19. As per Departmental Order dated 27.9.2004 all the Executive Engineer's were directed to prepare a panel for those posts. Whether the panel was constituted if not then why?"
To this he seems to have received a response on 1-2-07 through letter of APIO, office of DDG (W) stating that the matter pertained to PWD and hence refunding the fees received through IPO. We have come to this conclusion on a response to the application because in his first appeal to the JS, MoUD Shri Tejpal has referred to a response, in which he has found that, "the information which was provided was incomplete, misleading and irresponsible."
This appeal was transferred to the DG (Works) by Public Information Cell of MOUD dated 26-2-07, after which a response point-wise was sent to the appellant on 18-4-07 by SE (E) as below:
"I. There were 84 sanctioned posts of Electrician in 1998 (21 of D. R. Quota and 63 of Promotional Quota). Vide CE (E)-I, CPWD, Letter No. 3 (22)/CE (E)-I/III-14 dated 14.12.98 and even No. 134-38 dated 11.2.99, 10% cut in posts of electrician was made. Hence sanctioned strength was reduced to 79 (20 in Direct Quota and 59 in Promotional Quota).
II. 19. Nos. Electrician retired between 1998-2004, details are as under: -
1. Sh Ran Singh, S/o Sh Prabhu Ram on 30.6.1999.
2. Sh. Murari Lal, S/o Bihari Lal on 30.6.1999.
3. Sh. Pyare Singh, S/o Sadhu Singh on 30.6.1999.
4. Sh. Krishan Lal, S/o Sh. Ratanlal on 31.7.1999.
5. Sh. Om Prakash, S/o Uday Singh on 30.11.1999.
6. Sh. Chandu Lal, S/o Sh. Bachi Ram on 31.01.2000.
7. Sh. Sudesh Pal, S/o G. L. Sabharwal on 29.2.2000.
8. Sh. Ram Das, S/o Sh Lalu Singh on 31.5.2000.
9. Sh. Shiv Kumar Saini, S/o Sh. Sardarilal on 30.9.2000.
10. Sh. Ramji Dubey, S/o Sh. S. D. Dubey on 31.01.2002.
11. Sh. Satish Prakash, S/o Sh. Ram Govind on 31.03.2002.
12. Sh. Arjun Dev, S/o Sh. Nan Lal on 30.6.2002.
13. Sh. Janak Raj, S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh on 30.11.2002.
14. Sh. Baldev Singh, S/o Sh. Gyan Singh on 30.6.2003.
15. Sh. Wachaspati, S/o Sh. Ganga Dutt on 30.9.2003.
16. Sh. M. K. Sharma, S/o Sh. Sohan Lal on 31.03.2004.
17. Sh. Ratan Kumar, S/o Sh. Gyani Ram on 31.03.2004.
18. Sh. Sher Singh, S/o Sh. Sumer Singh on 30.11.2004.
19. Sh. Ramesh Chopra, S/o Sh. D. N. Chopra on 31.12.2004.2
These posts were filled up on promotion only after 2.4.2004, as before that Hon'ble CAT had directed that till OA No. 1620/2000 is disposed off, no promotions should be made.
III. These Wiremen were promoted to the post of Electrician on the basis of information submitted by concerned Division Offices, wherein they were promoted on the basis of seniority of Assistant Wiremen instead of Wireman. As soon as the above error was noticed, they were reverted to the post of Wireman vide this office order dated 29.10.2004. These workers thereafter approached the Hon'ble CAT in OA No. 2674/2004 and their reversion is under stay. Seniority of Shri Tejpal was antedated only vide this office order dated 10.11.2005 from 09/07/1993 to 24.9.1992.
IV. As explained in Para II, these Wiremen were promoted on the basis of wrong information and subsequently they were reverted. No Departmental Inquiry in this regard was conducted.
V. No Departmental Inquiry was/ has been conducted in this regard.
VI. At present against the 59 sanctioned posts of Electrician in Promotion Quota (47-Gen, 8SC, 4-ST), 46 General electricians are working. Shri Tejpal belongs to General category. As and when vacancy will be available in General category, Shri Tejpal will be promoted as per his seniority.
VII. The workers who have been promoted have been promoted after verifying all their documents.
VIII. Particulars were called from concerned Division Offices for preparation of Panel. The requisite particulars were not received by the required time. Thereafter new result was declared."
Appellant's prayer before us is as below:
"I request you to take some steps in this regard according to RTI Act 2005 and I should also call on the fixed date. I also want to request you to fix some penalty because of not giving any clear information in this regards."
We have received a detailed response to our appeal notice from Shri S.B. Singh ADG (NR) dated 5-8-08, which concludes as follows:
3"The information furnished to the applicant was appropriate and clear and the delay has occurred for the applicant's not approaching the appropriate PIO/ Appellate Authority, i.e. SE, Coord Circle (Elect.) & ADG (NR). As such, it is again submitted that no penalty be imposed on the departmental officials."
The appeal was heard on 6-82008. The following are present.
Appellants Shri Tejpal Solanki.
Shri Desraj.
Respondents Shri S. P. Shakarwal, SE (E), Coord.
Shri Ratan Gaur, UDC.
Shri S. P. Singh, ADG (NR).
Since it was not clear to us as to whether a response had at all been received to the original application and if so, what was the reference made in his first appeal to "incomplete and misleading information" parties were asked to clarify this response. Neither party was able to do so. We have, therefore, put aside the question of examining the response to the first appeal and proceeded to examine the response to the first appeal point-wise. Appellant Shri Tejpal submitted that the incorrect information supplied to him was with regard to question Nos. 4 and 5. The questions and the answers provided are as follows:
S. Question Answer
No.
4. In spite of being the senior the As explained in Para II, applicant was not promoted, these Wiremen were then why the above three promoted on the basis of Wiremen were promoted where wrong information and the departmental enquiry was subsequently they were done in respect of them. If so, reverted. No then given the name, Departmental Inquiry in designation and address of the this regard was Investigating Officer. conducted.
5. What action has been taken No Departmental Inquiry by the Investigating officer? was/ has been If any official is found guilty conducted in this regard. as per inquiry that what action has been taken against them, please give details.
4Shri Des Raj, assisting appellant, submitted that the reply to question No.5 was incomplete because as found from the reply to question No.4 despite Shri Tejpal having been assured that the promotion will be as per seniority, an officer junior to him has been promoted and no departmental enquiry conducted against that official though there were charges against him, therefore, he wanted to know the action taken against the person making the promotion. However, as explained to Shri Tejpal this was not the question asked in the original RTI request or even in first appeal. It is open to him to raise this question through afresh application u/s 6 of the RTI Act, 2005.
DECISION NOTICE We find that the information sought by appellant has been provided point-wise in the letter of SC (E) of 18-4-07. If as appellant alleges he has found from the information received evidence of injustice to him or breach of rules he is free to move the appropriate authorities in getting these redressed. The purpose of exercising his right to information has already been met and there is no further cause of action for this Commission.
Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 6-8-2008 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 6-8-2008 5