Central Information Commission
Ms.Poonam Dabas vs Ministry Of Information And ... on 25 February, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000182
Date of Hearing : February 25, 2011
Date of Decision : February 25, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Ms. Poonam Dabas
C/o Doordarshan News
R.No.510
Doordarshan Bhawan
Tower 'B' Mandi House
Copernicus Marg
New Delhi 110 001
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondents
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Pay & Accounts Office (IRLA)
AGCR Building
I.P.Estate
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri K.Prasad, PIO & PAO
Shri R.C.Jain, Appellate Authority & ACA
Ms.Madhu Rawat, AAO
Shri A.Meena, Accountant
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000182
ORDER
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.9.8.10 with the PIO, PAO, IRLA seeking the following information:
i) Have SR 196 to 203 which contain rules for maintenance of Service book been applied for maintaining my Service book
ii) As per Rules, the duplicate Service Book should have been provided to me within six months of the date on which these rules become effective. The reasons that the duplicate service book has not been provided to me till date be clarified.
iii) Has my service been verified from the date of joining till Aug.2010 by the Head of my Department. If so, copy of the annual authentication certificates be provided.
iv) In January every year the duplicate copy of the service book has to be updated by the head of office. Has this procedure been followed in my case.
v) Has the period of alleged 'diesnon' from Nov.2003 to July 2004 been recorded in my Service Book. Has the entry been duly attested by head of office recording its full duration and quoting the order number. Copy be provided.
vi) Is there any overwriting or erasure in my service book? If so the reasons thereof.
vii) Does the overwriting or erasure have counter signature of the head of office
viii) Duplicate Service book as per SR 257 duly verified by head of office be provided.
ix) The official copy of the Service Book be provided for inspection.
Smt.Sunita Sharma, PIO replied on 9.9.10 furnishing point wise information. With regard to point 1,, she stated that PAO(IRLA) maintains the leave accounts on receipt of leave sanctioned by the department and payments are made as per orders received from the department from time to time. The matter regarding maintenance of service book pertains to DG:Doordarshan. Service book relating to record of services was to be maintained by DG:Doordarshan. She further added that the PAO(IRLA) maintains the extra service book and that the RTI application has been transferred to DG:Doordarshan with a request to furnish the information directly to the Applicant. With regard to point (ii), she stated that Under IRLA system service book is not required to be maintained but since 2003, extra service book is prepared only to record some important orders such as promotion, leave, LTC etc. With regard to point (iii), she stated that the Applicant is under payment control of PAO(IRLA) from 1/97 whereas the administrative control lies with their department i.e. Prasar Bharati, D.G.Doordarshan. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.9.9.10 with the Appellate Authority commenting on the reply provided and pointing out the deficiencies. Shri Banghula Sagar, Appellate Authority replied on 15.10.10 stating that information has already been provided on 9.9.10, while enclosing a copy of the PIO's reply along with his letter. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Appellate Authority , the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.1.11.10 before CIC.
Decision
2. At the outset, the Commission informed the Appellant that the information sought against point (i) does not fall under the definition of 'information' as given u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act as she is only seeking the opinion of the PIO.
3. The Appellant during the hearing sought the reasons for the delay in providing her with the duplicate service book. The Respondents clarified that the service book which they are maintaining is not a duplicate service book but is only an extra service book which is being maintained by the IRLA for their convenience and is really not a service book in the strictest sense since only some entries are recorded in it . As far as the original service book is concerned the Respondent maintained his position that the same has been sent to the Administrative Section of DG:Doordarshan. To the Appellant's query as to how then the IRLA is calculating her salary without complete details of her service available in her extra service book the Respondent explained that the salary is being paid on the basis of order received from the Department (Prasar Bharati). He produced a copy of this Order from the DG: Doordarshan before the Commission.
4. The Commission after hearing both sides directs the PIO, IRLA to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant and to PIO DG:Doordarshan affirming the fact that IRLA does not maintain the Service Book of any employee and that what is being maintained in the case of the Appellant is only an extra service book and that the original should be available with DG:
Doordarshan. He should also add in the affidavit that the extra service book is not a duplicate service book and in the strictest sense is not a service book as it does not contain all entries related to the service of the employee.
5. The PIO, DG:Doordarshan is directed to allow the Appellant to inspect her original service book and to also provide to her the reasons for the delay in providing her with the same, if available on record, in the form of file notings or any communication. If in case the original service book is not available with DG: Doordarshan, an FIR to be lodged with the local police by the PIO and u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act an enquiry to be conducted by a high level committee set up by the DG into the matter of the lost service book in order to fix the responsibility. Appropriate disciplinary action is recommended against the official found guilty of having misplaced the service book. The enquiry report along with information on any action taken against the irresponsible official identified may be conveyed to the Appellant by 10 April, 2011. The PIO (IRLA) is directed to forward a copy of this Order to PIO, DG:Doordarshan. The affidavit from PIO (IRLA) to reach the Commission/Appellant by 25.3.11.
6. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Ms. Poonam Dabas C/o Doordarshan News R.No.510 Doordarshan Bhawan Tower 'B' Mandi House Copernicus Marg New Delhi 110 001
2. The Public Information Officer Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Pay & Accounts Office (IRLA) AGCR Building I.P.Estate New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Pay & Accounts Office (IRLA) AGCR Building I.P.Estate New Delhi
4. Officer Incharge, NIC