Central Information Commission
Rao Mousamsingh Bhagwatsingh vs Department Of Posts on 10 November, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2015/001562/11672
04 November 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rao Mousamsingh Bhagwatsingh
260-A, "Gunjan"
Apna Nagar, Gandhidham
Kutch - 370201
Respondent : CPIO/ Supdt. of Posts
Department of posts
Kachchh Postal Division,
Bhuj - 370 001
RTI application filed on : 05/10/2011
PIO replied on : 08/11/2011
First appeal filed on : 15/12/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 13/01/2012
Second Appeal dated : 21/07/2015
Information sought
1. Provide copy of guideline issued by Central Govt. for sanction the bill under MG-NREGA and name of authorized person in Bhuj Ho and his designation.
2. Provide the name of person/designation whom is concerned for work related to MG NREGA in Bhuj HO/Khavda SO and Juna BO and their job chart.
3. Provide the information about how the payments are being affected by the post office for MG- NREGA.
4. What action taken for reconciliation of work done related to MG- NREGA for above mentioned period specially with reference to Taluka Panchayat, Bhuj.
5. Eligibilities for working as SPM and BPM and provide name of person who were worked in Khavda and Juna BO during the above mentioned period and their respective qualifications.
6. Duty list of Sub Divisional Inspector, detail of SDI for Khavda SO and Juna BO and provide copy of inspection report made by concerned inspector during above period for the SO and Bo mentioned above.
7. From when the special "90...." Series introduced for MG NREGA account opened in PO, when it has been introduced for Khavda SO and provide details of a/c opened during the above period in Khavda and Juna BO.
8. Under MG NREGA how much maximum credit can be made an account within one financial year. Also mentioned the various registers maintained by Postal Person for MG Page 1 of 3 NREGA payment. Provide the copy of register wherein credit information for Juna, Dedhiya BO are available for above mentioned period.
9. From Taluka panchayat statements submitted for payment under MG NREGA to Bhuj HO and provide documents related to identity of person & specimen signature who comes with order letter for payment.
10. Bills submitted by Taluka panchayat which pre-audit formalities not completed and formalities adopted by postal department for payment under MG NREGA for payment of such non pre-audited bills.
11. If wrong bills comes for payment under MGNREGA and payment made by postal department, what actions are taken against such defaulting official (information in connection with saction no. 5710 dated 18/03/2010 which contains line department bills)
12. Who made signature on sanction no. 5710 issued on 18/03/2010 (three bills) and the bills submitted was false was come to know after 15 months. The reason for this and name of officer/ designation who found out this false bill.
13. Copy of inspection report submitted by special Investigation team made by postal department for alleged fraud of Juna Dedhia BO.
14. Payment made to person whose account not exist in Juna, Dedhiya BO, the post office practice in this regards and responsible person for the same.
15. The alleged irregularities reported in name of a/c holder for Juna Dedhiya BO and payment made on the same by post office. The procedure adopted for same and responsible official for them.
16. In connection with sanction 5710(18/03/2010) (i) Details of false account and amount credited in them and (ii) Detail of ambiguous a/c and name of account holder and amount credited in such accounts.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Row Mousamsingh Bhagwatsingh through VC Respondent: Mr. Pattabiraman CPIO's representative through VC The applicant stated that he has not received the information sought in his RTI application dated 05/10/2011. The CPIO's representative stated that the applicant is asking for information relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against employees of the postal department; however, the same cannot be disclosed being exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The applicant stated that he is willing to narrow his query; he requested for the names, job chart and minimum qualification of employees working in the post office. The CPIO's representative stated that he will provide the information.
Decision notice:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 03/10/2012 Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others [SLP (Civil) No.27734 of 2012] has held that disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public Page 2 of 3 activities or public interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the information sought for is for larger public interest. However, as agreed by the CPIO's representative he should provide the names, job chart and minimum qualification of employees working in the post office, within 15 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