Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mrh K Bansal vs Department Of Telecommunications on 5 January, 2015

                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26101592

                                                             File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000253/6692
                                                                                 05 January 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                                :      Mr. H. K. Bansal
                                                Kanta Niwas
                                                1011/24, Jagdish Colony,
                                                Rohtak - 124001

Respondent                               :      CPIO & Director (Civil)
                                                Department of Telecommunications
                                                Sanchar Bhawan,
                                                New Delhi - 110001

RTI application filed on                 :      02/08/2013
PIO replied on                           :      23/08/2013
First appeal filed on                    :      16/09/2013
First Appellate Authority order          :      No Order
Second Appeal dated                      :      09/01/2014

Information sought

:-

The applicant has sought the following information:-

1.0 Please refer to DOT OM No:- 9-296/2006-O&M Dt. 16/03/2007, vide which 40 Note Sheet Pages [N1 to N36 of Main file and N1 to N4 of part file] & 33 Corr pages from DOT file No:

38/1/2006-CWG [where representations of Sh. H K Bansal has been dealt] were supplied.

Thereafter vide DOT No:- 32-72/2011-CWG Dt. 18/06/2013 further 25 Note Sheet Pages [N41 to N65 of Main file] have also been supplied. In this regard following may please be informed/supplied [as attested true copies] and thereafter inspection of concerned file(s) may also be allowed.

[A] N/1 Dt. 03/04/2006 to N/4 Dt. 19/04/2006 of Pt File is supplied as N/1 to N/4 of Main File. Further N/1 Dt. 13/15.06.2005 of Main file has been supplied as N/5 of Main file As part file is always opened after main file, so correct N/1 onwards of main file be informed/supplied.

[B] Further N/2 Dt. 2.06.2005 to N/7 Dt. 27.10.2005 of another file No: 32-8/2005-CWG have been supplied as N/6 to N/11 [renumbered by tempering] of Main file. As different No files are never merged, the purpose/justification/reasons for doing this illegal merger to confuse/manipulate the file may be informed/supplied.

[C] Further N/8 Dt. 28/10/2005 of another file No:- 1-1/2005-CWG[Pt] have been supplied as N/12 [renumbered by insertion and no such note sheet is available in file no.:- 1-1/2005-CWG also] of Main file. AS different No files are never merged, the purpose/justification/reasons for doing this illegal merger to confuse/manipulate the file may be informed/supplied.

[D] Further N/13 Dt. 12/12/2005 onwards [perhaps upto N/16 Dt. 24/02/2006] have been supplied as N/13 to N/36 or 40 [renumbered by unreadable tempering and merging Part file also] of Main file. To clarify the unreadable tempering and merging correct pages [detailing out pages renumbered etc] may be informed/supplied.

[E] Further while approving Note Dt. 06/02/2006 of AS (T), Chariman TC on 06/02/2006 at N/18 wanted certain clarifications viz [i] if there are any facts which are at variance with those available at the time of the DPC under consideration, [ii] If DPC had omitted to have any such facts, [iii] If DPC committed any mistake & [iv] Is it for a review DPC to set right the matter? Copy of specific information available if any [other than as incorrectly recorded on N/19] as regards above queries of CH T.C. may be informed/supplied.

[F] Further at N/15 on 12/01/2006, M(P) T.C. recorded "Please wait for the return of file from Secy (T)". The details of File about the return of which M(P) T.C. recorded and details of return of the said file before issue of letter Dt. 24/02/2006 may be informed/supplied.

[G] Further at N/19 on 21/02/2006, Sh. P.K. Panigrihi, the than DDG [E] reproduced incorrectly DOPT & Trg. OM Dt. 10/04/1989 [Para 18.1] and in the process concealed following important relevant material provision i.e. [i] while reproducing provision as i), ii), iii), & iv) as against a), c), d) &e) respectively the word OR at the end of each has been deliberately ignored to give an impression that all the four conditions are required to be fulfilled, [ii] Not only sub Para b) has been concealed but there is change twist in reproduction of other sub Paras also [iii] the opening Para viz The Proceedings of any DPC........grave error in the procedure followed by the DPC. Thus it may be necessary to convene REVIEW DPCs to rectify certain unintentional mistake,e.g.........[iv] The Last Para viz these instances are not exhaustive but only illustrative, & [v] The provisions regarding Over reporting of Vacancies { In this case vacancies reported are 38 as against 18 Posts in P&T BW Gr'A' Service in the grade of CE[C]} as per DOP&Trg. OM NO:- 22013/1/97- Estt(D0 Dt. 13/04/1998), appears to have been misrepresented/concealed, so the purpose/justification/reasons for doing this illegal merger to confuse/manipulate the file may be informed/supplied, alongwith the justification of attracting or otherwise of S-167 of IPC. If yes, individuals responsible for committing this CRIMINAL ACT may be informed.

[H] Further N/32 on 24/09/2006, in Para 3, it is recorded that "Sh. H.K. Bansal was considered for promotion to the Post of CE[C] in DOC held in DPC held in May 2005" as against the contrary fact that "He was not assessed due to non availability of ACRs for current period" Under such situation the basis of mention that considered for promotion may be informed.

[I] Further N/34 on 15/11/2006, Sh. P.K. Panigrihi, the than DDG [E] recorded that "The reports cannot be written after certain period prescribed in the Rules...." Copy of referred Rule may be informed/supplied.

2.0 Disposal of Sh. H.K. Bansal letter vide no. HKB/PF/Gnl(1)/5/vol-Vi/241 dated 11/07/2013 as addressed to Sh P.K. Panigrihi, Sr. DDG[BW] with copy marked to Sh. Pankaj Kumar CVO DOT concerning supply of attested copies of Notes of DOT F.No:- 38-1/2006-CWG/1-1/2005-CWG along with copy of Notes on the concerned files [alongwith copy of documents as mentioned in the Notes] till date, in respect of whole of the Public Authority [on various copies as marked to different functionaries], may be informed/supplied [as attested true copies] & thereafter inspection of all concerned file may also be allowed.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present Appellant: Mr. H. K. Bansal through VC Respondent: Mr. S P Mohapatra CPIO, Mr. Nithali Ram CPIO and Mr. N K Singh The appellant alleged that there is apparent tampering in file no. 38/1/2006-CWG (regarding representation submitted by Shri H K Bansal relating to his promotion) and he wants the respondent to supply attested copies of 65 note sheets (duly numbered) contained in the said file. He further stated that he wants the information relating to the disposal of his representation dated 11/07/2013. The CPIO stated that he will provide the information.

Decision notice:

As stated by the CPIO he should provide the information as above to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 3 of 3