Central Information Commission
Rahul Soni vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 23 August, 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/CCITL/A/2021/614106
Rahul Soni ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, RTI Cell, 5 Ashok Marg,
Lucknow - 226001, Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/07/2022
Date of Decision : 19/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/11/2020
CPIO replied on : 03/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 28/12/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 15/01/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/04/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 08.11.2020 seeking the following information:
"With reference to my ICT, approval by the Pr. CCIT, Pune vide order dated 28/11/2008, NOC was given by the Pr. CCIT, (UP) East, Lucknow region vide letter dated 11/04/2019. Further, after completing all the procedures and Service 1 disposal in Pune region order vide dated 15/05/2019, the Pr. CCIT, (UP) East, Lucknow region absorbed my services in Lucknow region and posted me at Siddharthnagar, UP vide order dated 09/09/2019. Further, my dossier for ICT (Absorption & Posting order dated 09/09/2019) was cancelled by Pr. CCIT, Lucknow (UP) East region vide order dated 09/01/2020.
With regard to above facts of case of my dossier for ICT, I, Rahul Soni, Income Tax Inspector working in Pune Income Tax region want following information under RTI Act, 2005 as under:
(1) Kindly provide copy of absorption and posting order in respect of my dossier for Inter Charge Transfer in Lucknow region.
(2) Kindly provide copy of letter or order issued in response to the Pr. CCIT, Pune letter dated 09/12/2019 with regard to extension of the joining date for ICT in my case.
(3) Kindly provide copy of order dated 09/01/2020 in respect of cancellation of my dossier of ICT.
(4) Kindly provide copy of letter or order issued in response to the Pr. CCIT, Pune letter dated 16/01/2020 with regard to re-consider the cancellation of Absorption & Posting Order vide dated 09/01/2020 for my dossier of ICT. (5) Kindly provide copy of note sheet or order sheet at which remarks or noting of the Pr. CCIT, Lucknow were made in response to letter dated 16/01/2020 of Pr.
CCIT, Pune with regard to re-consider the cancellation of consider the cancellation of Absorption & Posting Order vide dated 09/01/2020 or to restore absorption & posting order dated 09/09/2019.
(6) Kindly provide the category wise sanction of staffs and working of staffs in TA Cadre in the Pr. CCIT, UP (East), Lucknow region. Also provide category wise number of vacancy available in TA Cadre at present."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 03.12.2020 stating as follows:-
2Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2020. FAA's order dated 15.01.2021 held as under:-
"...........the CPIO is directed to provide the information to the petitioner w.r.t point no. 1 to 3, after obtaining prior consent of the third party keeping in view the provisions of section 11 of RTI Act, 2005. The reply w.r.t point no. 4, is self sufficient as the desired record has already been provided to the petitioner. As far as the contention, that what was the reason for not issuing letter w.r.t point 4 is concerned, the copy of record provided is self explanatory. The PIO, as mentioned above, has clarified that no letter/order was issued. The reply w.r.t point no.5 is also treated as settled, in view of the reply furnished by the PIO. In respect of query no.6 as well, the PIO has clarified that the actual number of vacancies has already been informed and the actual vacancy was 14, as on the date of reply of RTI. Hence, the information sought vide point no. 4, 5 & 6 has been correctly provided by the CPIO."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Anviksha Sharma, DCIT(Hq)(Admn) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Commission at the outset recorded adverse remarks for the callous conduct of the CPIO for not having adhered to the stipulation contained in the notice of hearing to appear in person through video conference at the designated NIC studio. The CPIO was warned to remain careful in the future.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved that only part information has been provided by the CPIO on point no.5 of the RTI Application as the noting/remarks of the Addl. CIT(Admin/Hq), the CIT(Admin & TPS) is clearly visible but the noting/remarks of the Pr. CCIT, UP(East), Lucknow region has been either missed by the CPIO or has not been provided knowingly. He further desired to discuss the merits of the contents of the file noting(s) received by him.
The CPIO submitted that she has rechecked the relevant file and there is no information or noting that has been left out to be provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing observes that the Appellant has merely conjectured about the availability of additional noting and not made any tenable case against the CPIO.
Nonetheless, to allay the apprehensions of the Appellant, the CPIO is directed to resend a copy of the relevant record on point no.5 of the RTI Application in duly certified form to the Appellant, free of cost, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5