Central Information Commission
Kinshuk Mayur vs Department Of Posts on 29 June, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/POSTS/A/2021/632266
Kinshuk Mayur ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts, Office of
the Supdt. of Post Offices,
RTI Cell, South Presidency
Division, Baruipur, South 24
Parganas-700144, West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/06/2022
Date of Decision : 27/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/01/2021
CPIO replied on : 19/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 17/05/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 25/06/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/07/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.01.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Certified copy of note sheet indicating noting by various officials and decision of competent authority on my above mentioned SPEED POST COMPLAINT NO- L200624-31/56/2020/SPEED POST DTD 24.06.2020.1
2. Certified copy of report or feedback obtained with respect to the SPEED POST COMPLAINT in my above mentioned SPEED. POST COMPLAINT NO- L200624-31/56/2020/SPEED POST DTD 24.06.2020.
3. Certified copy of the note sheet indicating noting by various officials and decision of competent authority on investigation report or feedback obtained with respect to the issues raised in my above mentioned SPEED POST COMPLAINT NO- L200624-31/56/2020/SPEED POST DTD 24.06.2020
4. Certified copy of letter, directions and/or instructions issued to concerned authority / subordinate office as a follow up action based on report or feedback on my above mentioned SPEED POST COMPLAINT NO- L200624- 31/56/2020/SPEED POST DTD 24.06.2020
5. In case no action is taken on my SPEED POST COMPLAINT NO- L200624-
31/56/2020/SPEED POST DTD 24.06.2020 please inform me the name of officer(s) and staff responsible, but failed to take action on my above mentioned SPEED POST COMPLAINT NO- L200624-31/56/2020/SPEED POST DTD 24.06.2020
6. Certified copy of your rules or citizens charter or any other document stipulating the time frame in number of days by which such a SPEED POST COMPLAINT NO- L200624-31/56/2020/SPEED POST DTD 24.06.2020 should have been dealt with and resolved by your public authority.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 19.03.2021 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1 to 5:- The enquiry is under process. Point No. 6:- Available in the website www.indiapost.gov.in.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2021. FAA's order dated 25.06.2021 held that the required information has already been provided by the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"...I think CPIO does not understand my query. In case where the requested information is held by another public authority or subject matter of the application is more closely connected with functions of another public authority, then the application is to be transferred to such other public authority within 5 days. So please I request to you to give this information immediately free of cost....."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Tanmay Halder, Complaint Inspector & Rep. of CPIO present through video-conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant Appeal of the Appellant has been heard together along with two similar Appeals. In the instant case, the Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that no material information has been provided to him till date.
The Rep. of CPIO tendered his apology and clarified that the averred reply was furnished to the Appellant inadvertently. As regards information sought against points no. 1 to 5 of RTI Application, he explained that as per their office norms, the preservation period for Speed Post articles is only 2 months and thereafter, the records are weeded out. He further added that even otherwise, the actual custodian of the averred article was Delhi Post office and therefore, it was sent to that office to provide the relevant information but the fact remains that no response has been received from the Delhi office as such.
The Appellant interjected to contest the violation of provisions of RTI Act by the Respondent office in not transferring the RTI Application to the concerned Delhi post office within 5 days as per Section 6 (3) of RTI Act. He prayed that the CPIO should be penalized for such violation.
Decision:
The Commission is irked by the casual approach of the Postal Department, South Presidency Dv., South 24 Pargans authorities in providing a wrong reply unrelated with the information sought in the instant RTI Application and without providing any material information to the Appellant till date.
Moreover, the Rep. of CPIO, Postal Department, South Presidency Dv., South 24 Pargans was neither aware of the proper facts of the case nor did he bother to enquire from the Department / concerned CPIO about the final action taken on the instant RTI Application before making his submissions before the Commission.
The above said conduct of the concerned then CPIO tantamount to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and also is in grave violation of the provisions of RTI Act. In view of this, the concerned then CPIO is hereby directed to file their written submission as to why action under Section 20 of RTI Act should not be initiated against him for not giving correct 3 response to the RTI Application. The written submissions of the then CPIO along with supportive documents, if any through the present CPIO should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Tanmay Halder, Inspector of Post & Rep. of CPIO should serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO on the current corresponding address for timely compliance of the above direction.
Now, in the interest of justice, the Commission further directs the present CPIO to take all the necessary steps to procure the available information as sought for in the instant RTI Application from the concerned record holder and provide it directly to the Appellant. The said information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, the CPIO is to ensure in future that their representative while appearing before the Commission should be well versed with the facts of the case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4