Central Information Commission
Prasenjit Bose vs Staff Selection Commission on 26 July, 2023
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/SSCOM/A/2023/112424
Prasenjit Bose ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
SSC, E II, Hqrs, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25/07/2023
Date of Decision : 25/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/12/2022
CPIO replied on : 16/01/2023
First appeal filed on : 24/01/2023
First Appellate Authority order : 14/02/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/03/2023
Information sought:
1
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2022 seeking the following information:
1) Please provide copies of all file noting & correspondence related to issuance of letter No. A-19018/1/2022-E-II dated 14/10/2022 by SSC, Hqrs. to SSC, ER. Copy is enclosed. Whether SSC, Hqrs, has received y further response from SSC, ER in pursuance to aforesaid correspondence dated 14/10/2022-E-11. Whether SSC, Hqrs has issued any reminder to SSC, ER in this regard to ascertain the status of the case.
2) Whether SSC, Hqrs. is in receipt of any communication in this regard from DoP&T. If yes, what action is taken by SSC, Hqrs.
3) Whether the guidelines issued by SSC, Hars. for regulating Aadhar Based Biometric Attendance System of its employee through its Circular dated 31/07/2019 bearing reference F. No. A-48011/1/2021-Estt.1, is mandated to be adhered in all the Regional/Sub-regional offices of the Commission by all level of its employees.
4) If yes, whether the same guidelines is considered/followed while evaluating the Aadhaar based Biometric Attendance of Shri Prasenjit Bose in letter & spirit for the period from 01/03/2022 to 26/08/2022 while rendering 47 days of Unauthorized absence considering as EOL without Medical certificate.
5) Under which provision of the extant rules, the Regional Director, SSC, ER is empowered to evaluate Aadhaar Based Biometric Attendance of an employee for 06 months on a whole. Whether any such practice is also followed in SSC, Hars. & in other regional/sub-regional offices of the Commission other than SSC, ER.
6) Whether SSC, ER has taken into consideration the biometric attendance of all its employees including the Regional Director, ER while arriving in the above decision in my case.
7) Please provide the photocopies of all file noting & correspondence related to above referred matter bearing under F.No. A-37011/28/2022-Admin.
8) Please provide the total amount of recovery in rupees. Whether the recovery is done in terms of DoP&T OM No. 18/26/2022-Estt (Pay-1) dated 06/02/2014.
9) Whether SSC, ER has taken any action in pursuance to aforesaid SSC, Hars letter No. A-19018/1/2022-E II dated 14/10/2022. Whether SSC, ER is le receipt of any further communications in this regard from SSC, Hars. If yes, copies of all those communications may be provided.
10) Whether SSC, Hars has issued any further communication to SSC, ER on this matter post issuance of its aforesaid letter No. A-19018/1/2022-E-dated 14/10/2022 If yes, please provide copies of all those documents.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.01.2023 stating as under: 2
"Insofar as the CPIO is concerned, in point 3 referred has been made to Estt.I Section circular dated 31.07.2019. In this regard it may be mentioned that under RTI Act, 2005, a CPIO is required to provide information as defined under Section 2f of the RTI Act. It is not supposed to interpret or solve problem raised by the applicant. Accordingly, your RTI application has been disposed of at the part of the CPIO".
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2023. FAA's order, dated 14.02.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Swati, US & CPIO along with A K Mandal, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The instant matter was being heard simultaneously and in continuation of a connected appeal filed by the Appellant against SSC, Eastern Region (ER) vide File No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2023/111968 which was attended by the CPIOs representing this case. Since the facts and the response of both SSC HQ and SSC ER were found to be similar in nature, the CPIOs present were informed that the decision in the instant matter will be on the same lines as that of the decision in File No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2023/111968.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO grossly erred in providing in a rather evasive reply to the instant RTI Application in as much as none of the points therein was specifically answered and no reasons have been mentioned for omitting to reply on these points. The Commission takes grave exception to the conduct of the CPIO in the matter and finds that despite the passage of more than a decade and a half since the implementation of the RTI Act, the CPIO, SSC appears to be grossly incapacitated to display minimum standards of responding to a RTI Application which includes providing a point-wise reply where the applicants seek information through various points 3 The Commission will be compelled to take stringent action against the CPIO in the event such lapses recur in the future.
Further, the CPIO is directed to send a revised point wise reply to the Appellant on points 1,2,7,8,9 & 10 of the RTI Application incorporating the specific available information. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to redact such information which may be hit by the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act i.e to redact names and particulars of officers who have tendered file noting(s), if any. The averred revised reply of the CPIO shall be provided to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
No relief is being ordered on points 3,4,5,6 as the information sought for through these points require clarification to be provided by the CPIO which is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4