Central Information Commission
Mra P K Raj vs Mtnl on 15 May, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000851 /5111
15 May 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A. P. K. Raj
ACA, Near Bus Stop,
E.Exp. High Way,
Kamaraj Nagar, Ghatkopar (E),
Mumbai-400077
Respondent : CPIO & General Manager (E-I)
MTNL, Mumbai
3rd Floor Nityanand Nagar Tele. Exch. Bldg.,
Off. E. Express Highway Link Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086
RTI application filed on : 20/09/2012
PIO replied on : 07/01/2013
First appeal filed on : 31/01/2013
First Appellate Authority order : 19/02/2013
Second Appeal dated : 28/02/2013
Information sought:
The applicant has sought the following information:-
1. Copies of evidences which shows the officer APK Raj obtained loan from individual (since in your charge memo No. GM(E-1)/Displ/PKR/34094/2012-13/23 dated 25/8/12 It is not mentioned but in you order No. GME(E-1)/Disc/PKR/34094/12-13/30 dated 11/9/2012 You mentioned that the officer obtained loan from individual)
2. Copies of evidence which shows the officer taken personal loan after censure order dated 9/7/2009 issued by GM(NM) MTNL Mumbai.
3. Director (HR) MTNL Corporate office New Delhi, Set aside the said censure on 30/6/2010.
Then how on which rule and basis you mentioned in your order dated as the officer APK Raj is censured.
4. E/L details availed by the officer APK Raj St No. 34094 from service book entry for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009.
5. The details of evidences of court case on which the officer attended court for the case against him for default in Payment of his loan without proper sanction leave.
6. Copy of controlling officer statement/report informing you as the officer APK Raj St No. 34094 is not in duty place(Office)/duty on following dates as mentioned in your memo dated 25/8/12, 1/2/2007, 7/4/2007, 3/12/2007, 23/1/2008, 18/2/2008, 1/3/2008, 19/4/2008, 19/6/2008, 14/7/2008, 20/9/2008, 20/10/2008, 28/11/2008, 23/1/2009, 28/1/2009 and 7/3/2009.
7. Furnish rule/authority under which you issued memo questioning attendances of the officer APK Raj St No. 34094, for above period dates. Since the officer on the above period worked under DE(OCB) Vashi and under General Manager Navi Mumbai MTNL. And the Page 1 of 2 General Manager Navi Mumbai and controlling officer of Vashi OCB were not questioned the attendance, then who are you? And on which power, authority, rules and evidence, you issued memo regarding attendance of dates on which the officer worked in other zone (Navi Mumbai)
8. Are you, the present General Manager of east Zone is in higher rank above GM(NM) and controlling officer of General Manager of Navi Mumbai MTNL of the year 2007 to 2009.
9. You know the Abhydaya coop Bank, Vashi, personal loan matter of APK raj as per AGM(admn) letter No. ST/AMS/JTO/Disc.cases/2008-09 dt. 31/3/10 and as per your letter to APK raj dated 16/4/10. Then on what rule and basis you have not initiated disciplinary action on March/April 2010 as alleged misconduct of non intimation of said loan.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. A. P. K. Raj through VC Respondent: Mr. P B Chiplunkar CPIO through VC The appellant stated that the respondents have not provided information on the pretext that it is a service related grievance which cannot be redressed under the RTI law. He further stated that all the respondent's had to do was to provide copies of the documents available on record relating to his RTI application dated 20/09/2012. He added that the CPIO's reply was delayed. The CPIO explained that the appellant had asked questions with prefixes such as what, how etc. which are of interrogatory nature and the records were held with various sections and hence, there was some delay in providing the reply.
Decision notice:
The CPIO is directed to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application dated 20/09/2012 and also allow him to take photocopies/extracts therefrom, free of cost, upto 50 pages within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The CPIO's contention that the appellant had asked questions with prefixes such as what, how etc. which is not information is flawed. He must ascertain whether there is/are any material/document(s) on record about the matter and if any such information is located, the same should be provided to the appellant (subject to the provisions of the RTI Act) and if there is no such information the same should be clearly stated.
The CPIO, who received the appellant's RTI application, is warned to exercise due care for future to ensure that the correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per the provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 may be initiated in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2