Central Information Commission
Abhay J Muley vs National Dairy Research Institute ... on 16 August, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/NDRES/A/2017/192935
In the matter of:
Abhay J Muley
...Appellant
Vs.
The CPIO, National Dairy Development Board,
Post Box No. 40, Anand - 388001, Gujarat. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 16.07.2016
CPIO reply : 16.08.2016
First Appeal : 31.08.2016
FAA Order : 26.09.2016
Second Appeal : 15.12.2016
Date of hearing : 14.06.2018, 27.07.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 16.07.2016 sought information on six points as under:
1. Copy of documents, circulars, policy, rules and regulations of NDDB services regarding promotion of employees (General and SC/ST).
2. Copy of the Roster of SC/ST employees regarding filling up of backlog vacancies through promotions and direct recruitment.
3. Reasons for non-transferring of Dr. S.S. Gill, Sr. Manager (HRD) during the last 18 years.
4. Reason for not promoting Ms. Seema Mathur, Manager (CS) NDDB, Noida for the last 8 years.1
5. Copies of policies/rules/act of the DoPT, applied to the NDDB for promotion of the SC/ST employees and filling up of backlogs vacancies of SC/ST categories in the NDDB for the last 5 years.
6. Copies of appraisals/documents pertaining to the promotions sanctioned in respect of Ms. Anandita Badiya, Dr.Sujita Saha and Shri. Anil P. Patil who were appointed recently in the NDDB.
The CPIO replied on 16.08.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 31.08.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 26.09.2016. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 15.12.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Neemesh Shah,
General Manager cum CPIO,
National Dairy Development Board
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 16.08.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 26.09.2016. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was satisfied with the reply received from the respondent only on point no.5. He further submitted that only one line reply was provided on point no. 1 which is not proper.
Due to mal-functioning of the Video-conferencing facilities at the venues of the appellant and the respondent, the hearing could not be conducted properly and 2 accordingly, the Commission decided to adjourn the case to provide equal opportunities to both the parties to plead their case before the Commission.
The registry of this bench is directed to fix another date for hearing and to ensure that the respondent CPIO and the appellant are present on the next date of hearing to assist the Commission in its deliberation.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Final Order : 27.07.2018
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Neemesh Shah,
General Manager cum CPIO
National Dairy Development Board
On perusal of the case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant on point no. 1 of the said RTI application. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant as all the sought for information is eminently disclosable under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act i.e. Copies of relevant circulars, policies, rules and regulations of NDDB regarding promotion of employees for General and SC/ST category should be provided to the appellant. On point no. 2, copies of roaster registers for the year 2015-2016 of SC/ST employees regarding filing of the backlog posts through promotions and direct recruitments should be provided. The sought for information on point nos. 3 and 4 are not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, hence the same cannot be provided. The sought for information on point no. 6 is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The information provided by the respondent authority on point no. 5 of the above stated RTI application was considered to be proper by the Commission and that the appellant was also satisfied with the same.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to some of the points contained in the said RTI application, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply 3 with regard to some points of the above stated RTI application as discussed during the hearing complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 10 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[AmitavaBhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 4