Central Information Commission
M Vinoth Kumar vs Ut Of Puducherry on 24 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2023/139770
M Vinoth Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Health & Family
Welfare Services, Main Block,
Old Maternity Hospital Complex,
Victor Simonel St, Puducherry - 605001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025
Date of Decision : 24.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.06.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 26.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 16.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Employee Roaster including Reservation (SC) category for the past 20 years or available period for the "Promotion of Health Inspector from Health Assistant-Copy required.Page 1 of 4
2. Employee Roaster including Reservation (SC) category for the past 20 years or available period for the "Promotion of Technical Assistant (NMEP) from Health Inspector- Copy required
3. Name of employees existing at present under Reservation category (SC) in the promotion posts of Health Inspector and Technical Assistant-
NMEP. particulars required.
4. Is any backlog of Reservation (SC) category posts currently available for the promotion of Health: Inspector from Health Assistant? If yes, please give details.
5. Norms or guidelines followed during Promotion for Reservation category among sanctioned posts. Particulars required.
6. Present Vacant Position in the cadre of Health Assistant and Health Inspector.- Particulars required."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Absent.
Both the parties remained absent despite service of the hearing notice.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that no reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant as per available records. Further the Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite service of the hearing notice. Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the concerned CPIO for neither providing any reply qua the instant RTI Application nor participated in the hearing and therefore he/she is being called to show cause. The act of the concerned CPIO, tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission. In view of the above, inaction on his/her part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Page 2 of 4 Show Cause Notice to concerned CPIO. The CPIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of the CPIO should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
In the meantime, the Commission directs the concerned CPIO to examine the instant RTI Application and provide pointwise reply strictly as per the provision of the RTI Act, to the Appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA shall ensure compliance with this order.
A copy of this order is marked to the FAA who shall ensure that a copy of this order is received by the erring CPIO. The FAA is further directed to ensure that under all circumstances, the written submissions of the erring CPIO should reach the Commission within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order, failing which proceedings will be held ex-parte and decision passed. The FAA shall inform the Commission of the name/names of the CPIO at the relevant time who was/were supposed to give a reply to the Appellant and the name of CPIO who did not appear in the hearing.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 3 of 4 Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Services, Main Block, Old Maternity Hospital Complex, Victor Simonel St, Puducherry - 605001 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)