Central Information Commission
Mra D Gaikwad vs Department Of Posts on 11 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/C/2013/000100/9210
11 December 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. A D Gaikwad,
R/o - 2/38, Uma Housing Society,
Old Mill Compound, Solapur - 413001
Respondent : CPIO/ Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Post
O/o Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Solapur Postal Division,
Solapur - 413001
CPIO
Department of Post
O/o PMG,
Pune Region,
Pune - 410001
RTI application filed on : 22/04/2013
Complaint received dated : 07/06/2013
Information sought:-
1. Supply a copy of appointment order issued in respect of person who has signed said show cause notice No. B1/RT/Absentee/ADG/12 dated 06/08/2012 & a copy of charge report made while holding the charge of the post of SSPOs, Solapur by this person.
2. Whether a person who has signed said show cause notice dated 06/08/2012 is competent or declared to be the head of the office under the General Financial Rules for the purpose of exercising the powers as disciplinary authority as provided in Rule 2 (g) & (j) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 on a Government Servant? Provide information in Yes or No.
3. Intimate name of the person who was holding the charge of the SPO's, Pandharpur as per the inspection report dated 28/11/12 to 29/11/12 of the CO Mumbai.
4. Intimate the name of the person/authority who has withheld my pay vide SSPO's, Solapur letter no B1/RT/Absentee/ADG/12 dated 03/08/2012.
5. Whether this is same person/authority who has withheld my pay vide SSPO's Solapur letter No. B1/RT/Absentee/ADG/12 dated 03/08/2012 & who is not well acquainted with the disciplinary procedure laid down in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as per information of RO Pune letter dated 14/03/2013.
6. Explain what is the succession of steps/stages or procedures prescribed by laws/Rules in the postal manual volume-III or in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for withholding the pay of the Government servants.
7. Intimate the name of authority who has directed the ADPS-II, RO Pune to dispose of my appeal dated 27/09/2012. Provide copy of the record/document of direction given by the said competent authority.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: Mr. A D Gaikwad through VC Respondent: Mr. Subhash Walunj CPIO's representative through VC 07028007205 The applicant stated that he has received the information but the reply was provided with delay of 27 days. The CPIO's representative accepted that there was delay; however, he informed that the then CPIO Mr. R D Mahajan responsible for the delay has retired from service in June 2013 and it is not possible to take any action against him at this stage.
Decision notice:
It is seen that a Coordinate bench of this Commission in its decision dated 13/05/2010 (file no. CIC/PB/2008/00999&CIC/SM/A/2009/000287 Yatish Kumar v/s CPIO PNB) has held as under:
"4. The delay in this case was rather very long and merited imposition of penalty on the responsible CPIO. Although some concession could be given for collecting the information from various offices, surely it could not have taken so long. However, since the CPIO concerned has retired from the service of the bank, we find it not possible to impose any penalty on him at this point of time."
On a similar issue another Coordinate bench of the Commission in its decision dated 18/12/2013 (file no. CIC/SS/C/2013/000053 Chander Prakash Vs Airport Authority of India) has held as under:
"4. He has thus requested the Commission to take a lenient view in the matter and drop the penalty proceedings against Sh. K. C. Malhotra, the then CPIO, who has retired from the service of the public authority long back.
5. In view of the submission above and considering the fact that Sh. K.C. Malhotra has since retired from the services of the public authority, no further action is warranted in the present matter, which is hereby closed."
Respectfully following the ratio of the above decisions, it is decided not to initiate any penal proceedings against the then CPIO Shri R D Mahajan(retired) responsible for not providing the information in time. However, officials dealing with the RTI matters in the office of PMG Pune are advised to exercise due care and ensure that information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per the provisions of the Act.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2