Central Information Commission
Rupali S. Neel vs Department Of Posts on 7 March, 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/POSTS/A/2021/602257 +
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/105023 +
CIC/POSTS/C/2021/113117
Rupali S Neel ......अपीलकता
.... /Appellant
....िशकायतकता
.... /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o Sr. Supdt. Of Post offices,
Nagpur City Division, RTI Cell,
GPO Building, First Floor,
Nagpur - 440001, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/03/2022
Date of Decision : 04/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals/ Complaint have been clubbed for decision as
these are based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeals/complaint:
S.No File RTI CPIO First FAA Order Second
1
No. Application replied on Appeal dated Appeal
filed on filed on /Complaint
filed on
1. 602257 16.08.2020 03.09.2020 14.09.2020 23.11.2020 27.01.2021
2. 105023 16.08.2020 03.09.2020 14.09.2020 23.11.2020 27.01.2021
3. 113117 16.08.2020 03.09.2020 Not on 23.11.2020 17.02.2021
record
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/602257,
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/105023 &
CIC/POSTS/C/2021/113117
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 16.08.2020 seeking the following information:
1) Kindly provide me a certified copy of my ST Caste Certificate Verification Report where my ST caste certificate is mentioned as a FALSE up to dated 25- 01-2009 from Nagpur City Division, Nagpur Region, Maharashtra Circle.
2) Kindly provide me a name of complainant and certified copy of that complaint received by Nagpur City Division, Nagpur Region, Maharashtra Circle against my ST caste status up to 25-01-2009.
The CPIO replied to the appellant/complainant on 03.09.2020 stating as follows:-
"............the information sought in your application is not available in material form. Further it is to intimate that under OM No 01.04.2009 IR dated 05.10.2009 guidelines has been given which stated that ," the public information officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the replies hypothetical question."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2020. FAA's order dated 23.11.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeals/Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
2The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: Megh Raj, Complaint Inspector & Rep. of CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant/Complainant while narrating the grievance regarding termination of her services on the ground of false caste certificate stated that she is aggrieved by the fact that her caste verification report has not been provided to her till date, either by the competent authorities during inquiry or by the CPIO in response to her RTI Application. She further raised the following grounds vide written submission dated 25.02.2022 -
"....as per the procedure prescribed by the Govt., the appointing authority is bound to preserve all documents submitted by the applicant at the time of recruitment in the "Personal File" of the applicant till the date of retirement.
As far as the verification of reserved category candidates' caste certificates are concerned, such certificates are to be got verified from the concerned District Magistrate only as per statutory rules made by the department of posts and not through any other authority.
This has been confirmed by the Govt. of Maharashtra under No xxxxxxxxxxx dated 18.08.2020 stating that no such orders are issued by the Maharashtra State Government regarding caste validity certificate in respect of Central Government Employees. [Copy enclosed for your kind information please]. This has further been confirmed by the Dept. of Personnel & Training [DOPT], New Delhi vide letter no. 43011/1-3/2020/Estt. (Res-1) dated 15.01.2020 along with all other allied documents wherein it is stated that such reserved category candidates caste certificates are to be got verified from the concerned District Magistrate only. [Copy of the same is enclosed for your information please] It is brought to your kind notice that my ST caste certificate was already verified by the CP10 at the time of initial appointment and such deposition was supplied to your office. copy already stands submitted to your office vide my application dated 18.03.2021, Annexure 1.1 During the course of inquiry, as per the provisions contained in the rules, relative defense documents were requisitioned with the respondent through Inquiry Officer including the fact which shows that the ST caste certificate of the applicant is FALSE. [Daily Order Sheet No.06 & 07 3 dated 21.06.2017 and 26.07.2017, copies already stand submitted to your office vide my application dated 18.03.2021, Annexure III,IV.] But the respondent through Inquiry Officer has replied that the requisitioned documents as 'NOT SUPPLIED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY' Subsequent request was also made for the same but in vain. Such denial of the respondent to supply the requisitioned documents without reasoned reply is a clear-cut case of denial of reasonable opportunity to the defense to defend the case to the satisfaction of the applicant and also vocative of the principle of natural justice.
Finally, the respondent has "REMOVED" the applicant from Govt. service with effect from 10.08.2020 maintaining the charges framed against me in the charge sheet. The grounds for my removal were considered as the Invalidation certificate in respect of my ST caste issued by the state formed caste scrutiny committed.
Actually on the date of issue of the charge sheet i.e. on 15.01.2009, the respondent was not having any evidence or proof which shows that my ST caste certificate is false and no such document was also annexed to Annexure-III of the charge sheet but the respondent had relied on the Invalidation report received from the State formed Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 09.12.2015 issued on 22.01.2016 As such the reliance of the respondent in deciding my ST caste certificate as FALSE is tornlly irregular and not as per the rules framed by the Government of India in respect of central Government employees. During the course of inquiry also, the respondent has miserably failed to produce any of the evidence showing my ST caste certificate as FALSE and also violated the principle of natural justice in not supplying me the related requisitioned defense documents.
From the above submission, your honor may see that the action of the respondent to REMOVE me from Govt. service amounts to ILLEGAL.
Therefore it is my kind request to you to direct the CPOIs to provide me my int application documents if they have, otherwise squash my charge sheet and reinstate me into service with all consequential benefits from the date of removal...."4
The CPIO submitted that records pertaining to caste verification certificate dated 25.01.2009 were not traceable in their office records therefore, the Appellant/Complainant has been informed accordingly.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of facts on record observes that although the factual reply provided by the CPIO was in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
However, upon insistence of the Appellant/Complainant, the CPIO is directed to file an affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant/Complainant deposing categorically that record of information sought was not available in their office records. The said affidavit should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant/Complainant regarding her termination for which she sought intervention of the Commission is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the scope and mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) 5 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) And, more recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur(W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
Lastly, the Commission empathizes with the concern of Appellant/Complainant and advises her to pursue the matter through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal/complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6