Central Information Commission
Robin Singh vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 6 August, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/MOSPI/A/2019/640835 + 651143
In the matter of:
Robin Singh
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/Dy. Director (Central)
Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation
National Sample Survey Office (Field Operation Division)
NSSO Bhawan, INS-IV, Sector- 11, Ring Road,
Vikas Nagar - 226022, Lucknow
...Respondent
File No. 640835 651143 RTI application filed on : 24/02/2019 13/07/2019 CPIO replied on : 23/04/2019 29/07/2019 First appeal filed on : 01/04/2019 10/08/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 26/04/2019 04/09/2019 Second Appeal dated : 18/05/2019 16/09/2019 Date of Hearing : 04/08/2020 Date of Decision : 04/08/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: Shri Vivek Srivastava, Joint Director and CPIO and Shri Amresh Bahadur Pal, Deputy Director and CPIO, SSS Cadre Information Sought in File No. CIC/MOSPI/A/2019/640835:
The appellant is working as Junior Statistical Officer in NSSO FOD at Regional Office Agra. He has sought the following information regarding remarks given as "Integrity Doubtful" in his APAR for the year 2017-18:
1. Copy of the confidential diary which was supposed to be maintained by the supervisory officer.1
2. Copies of SECRET NOTES of Doubts and Suspicion which was supposed to be maintained by the supervisory officer.
3. Details of the follow up action taken by the next supervisory officer.
4. Copy of the SECRET REPORT sent to the Head of the Department.
5. And other related information.
Information Sought in File No. CIC/MOSPI/A/2019/651143:
The appellant had filed representations dated 01/01/2019 and 14/03/2019 against adverse remarks given in his APAR for the year 2017-18. He has sought the following information in regard to the same:
1. Status of his above stated representations.
2. Complete notings and note sheets related to the said representations.
Grounds for Second Appeals The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal no. 640835 submitted that the information sought by him was not supplied to him. He further alleged that the concerned authorities tried to mislead him by providing irrelevant documents. He further submitted that he had requested for documents relating to his APAR which was not only adversely written but also it was mentioned that integrity was doubtful and the same is a very serious charge. In this regard he drew attention to the DopT OM dated 11.02.2016 which was relied upon by him.
He further submitted that in the integrity related column, 'integrity doubtful' was written by the Reporting Officer Mr R.P Sharma, Senior Statistical Officer and was supported by the Reviewing officer, Shri Deepak Verma, Asst. Director (ISS). But when the APAR was disclosed to him, he was neither shown any document which were supposed to be prepared and maintained by them.
Despite his several requests they refused, citing it as confidential. Furthermore, he alleged that both the Reporting officer and Reviewing officer acted out of personal grudge. He further submitted that after the first appeal he received partial information i.e office memorandum and their clarifications. He summed up requesting for disclosure of relevant documents relating to the recording his 'doubtful integrity' in his APAR 2017-18 in the light of DoPT OM dated 11.02.2016.
2During the hearing the CPIO, Shri Vivek Srivastava reiterated that comments were asked from the Reporting officer, on which the reporting officer Shri R.P Sharma submitted that whatever is available on record is the only records maintained and he further informed that no secret diary or confidential notes as asked for by the appellant was maintained by them.
The appellant contended that when he joined service in the year 2013, his APAR remarks were very good and till 2016, the status remained the same. Therefore, he wanted to see the documents on the basis of which he was marked as doubtful integrity in 2017-18 APAR.
The appellant in his second appeal no. 651143 submitted that the concerned authorities should be directed to supply him relevant documents related to the status of his APAR 2017-18 in view of his representations. Shri Amresh Bahadur Pal, Deputy Director and CPIO, SSS Cadre submitted that there is a separate APAR division. However as they are the controlling authority of Subordinate Statistical Services Officer (SSS cadre) they were forwarded the RTI application on 09.04.2019 and 16.07.2019. He further submitted that however, the record is not pertaining to them.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that in case no. 640835 the CPIO failed to provide a suitable timely reply as per the mandate of the RTI Act. It was further observed that a reply was provided on 23.04.2019 in which the CPIO stated that the requisite information was asked from Regional Office, Agra and the same has been received. Information received is as follows:
"Assistant Director, Agra had written to the concerned officer, Shri R.P Sharma Senior Statistical Officer and the then Assistant Director, Shri Dipak Verma to provide the relevant information for providing the requisite information. In this respect whatever information received from them and the information available in Regional Office Agra is being enclosed.As far as the information sought in points no. 6 and 7 are concerned in which the appellant had sought copies of all the OMs issued by the office and the copies of explanation received from him, in this regard it is relevant to mention that there are several files processed in the office and to identify these letters from such files is a difficult task. However, whatever records could be traced in the office is being enclosed."3
The CPIO Lucknow vide written submissions dated 22.07.2020 reiterated that whatever information was available with them was given.
In case No. 651143, the CPIO provided a reply vide letter dated 29.07.2019 and enclosed the reply dated 22.07.2019 of the Central Office Lucknow. In this reply, point no. 1 was not replied properly and it was only intimated that for status report a reminder has been issued to Director (SSS) on 16.07.2019. In respect of point no. 2 it was mentioned that no notesheet is maintained in the office as APAR file is not sent to any officer/Section for comments. The FAA vide letter dated 04.09.2019 asked the CPIO to send the copy of the RTI dated 13.07.2019 to the CPIO, SSS Cadre so that the CPIO, SSS Cadre can provide the information sought to the appellant urgently. Accordingly the CPIO send the copy of the RTI to CPIO, SSS cadre on 04.09.2019. On analysing both the cases, it was noted that the replies provided by the CPIO was not point-wise and satisfactory. Moreover, in case any information is not maintained then the CPIO needs to give a categorical reply in respect of those points. The appellant is not satisfied with the replies because he wants to know the grounds on the basis of which his performance was graded poor and his integrity was indicated as doubtful.
Decision:
In the interest of justice, the Commission directs the CPIO, Shri Vivek Srivastava to revisit the queries raised by the appellant in both his RTI applications and provide a revised point-wise categorical reply based on the records available. He shall take assistance of the other deemed PIOs or record holders u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act in preparing the point-wise replies. The same should be given to the appellant within 10 days from the date of issue of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5