Central Information Commission
Shri.Ramakanta Nayak vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 21 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001006/19015
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001006
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ramakanta Nayak,
Tradesman-B (Draughtsman),
Institute of Physics,
P.O. Sainik School,
Bhubaneswar-751 005.
Respondent : Mr. C.B.Mishra
PIO & Registrar Institute of Physics PO: Sainik School, Bhubaneshwar- 751005 RTI application filed on : 16/11/2011 PIO replied : 10/02/2012 First Appeal : 30/12/2011 First Appellate Authority order : not mention Second Appeal received on : 28/03/2012 Appellant had sought information regarding the fabricated/forged enclosures of Ramakant Nayak.
S.No Queries Reply of CPIO 1 Registrar IOP informed in his comments to Sri V.P.Rajsekharan. 1(a) The matter is under
Section Officer. R&D-II DAE in letter No.271/IP Dated October investigation/pending disposal at 28.2009 in Para 8 that He gone through the Representation of Director's level. documents, Hence, Ramakanta Nayak along with the enclosures and he appears that the documents as requested by you some enclosures have been fabricated /forged and mislead to can not be provided at this stage. authorities to making decision.
a.) Kindly Provide the Xerox copy of such enclosures which appears to Registrar have been fabricated /forged b.) Kindly inform with documentary evidence that How the Registrar IOP appears that some enclosures have been fabricated /forged.
2. Registrar IOP informed in his comments to Sri V.P.Rajsekharan. . This is to reiterate that Shri Section Officer. Ramakanta Nayak was promoted R&D-Il DAB in his letter No.271/IP Dated October 28,2009 in from the grade of Tradesman-A Para 6 that Sri Nayak was promoted to the grade of Tradesman-B (Draughtsman) in the scale of pay of (Draughtsman) with effect from 01.08.2001. But no such letter Rs.3050-4590)- to the grade of had issued to Sri Nayak as designating Tradesman-B Tradesman-B (Draughtsman) in the (Draughtsman) except tradesman-B not Tradesman-B scale of pay of Rs.3200-49001- w.e.f.
(Draughtsman). 01 .08.2001.
a.) If such letter is available with Administration please provide the Xerox copy of above promotion letter in which mentioned that b.) Your query does not come under Ramakanta Nayak was promoted to the grade of Tradesman-B purview of RTI Act, 2005. (Draughtsman) with effect from 01. 08. 2001.
b.) If no such letter is available with Administration kindly inform Page 1 of 2 that in what intention Registrar IOP himself had communicated in written to DAE such false information.
3. Kindly inform that whether the appeal of Ramakanta Nayak had Your query does not come under the officially authorized to Registrar by IOP Authority to send his purview of RTI Act, 2005. comments to DAB? If yes then kindly provide the Xerox copy of Authorization letter of Authority.
4. Kindly provide the Xerox copy of recruitment and promotion Your query does not come under the policy for the post of Tradesman- Draughtsman) and purview of RTI Act, 2005. You are Draughtsman-A (Advertise post) with details-if such letter is required to write in clear terms so available with Administration is not traceable in existing that the same is understood at our recruitment and promotion rule. level and the relevant information can be provided.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by PIO. And refuse to reply to some points. Order of the FAA:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply from PIO and no reply from FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Ramakanta Nayak on video conference from NIC-Bhubaneswar Studio; Respondent: Mr. C.B.Mishra, PIO & Registrar on video conference from NIC-Bhubaneswar Studio;
The PIO has refused to give the information to the appellant without justifying how any of the exemptions of Section 8(1) would apply in the instant case. RTI is a fundamental right of citizens and the denial of information can only be based on Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission notes that the information sought by the Appellant at all the points is information as defined in the Act except for query- 2(b). The PIO will provide the information as per the available records if any information is not available on the record this should be clearly stated. The PIO is warned not to refuse the information under the RTI Act unless it is exempt as per the law failing which the penalty provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act is applicable.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per available records to the Appellant before 10 June 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 21 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ss) Page 2 of 2