Central Information Commission
Nityananda Das vs Department Of Expenditure on 31 January, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOEXP/A/2023/669992
Nityananda Das .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Under Secretary, Department
of Expenditure, E.III.A
Branch, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30-01-2024
Date of Decision : 31-01-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15-09-2022
CPIO replied on : 13-10-2022
First appeal filed on : 21-10-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 22-11-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28-12-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"The CPIO, DoE vide Letter No. 07/04/2021-E.III.A(R-615/2021) dated 25.10.2021, Letter No. 07/04/2021-E.III.A(R-631/2021) dated 25.10.2021 & 1 Letter No. 07/04/2021-E.III.A(R-637/2021) dated 25.10.2021 denies information sought in the RTI Application dated 07.10.2021, 12.10.2021 and 14.10.2021, respectively on the ground that the requisite information is very old in nature and not traceable in the Section.
In view of above, I am seeking following information under the RTI Act, 2005.
1. The certified copies of all the departmental actions taken to trace out the following records /files (which were not traceable as per DoE Letter No. 07/04/2021-E.III.A(R-615/2021) dated 25.10.2021, Letter No. 07/04/2021- E.III.A(R-631/2021) dated 25.10.2021 & Letter No. 07/04/2021-E.III.A(R- 637/2021) dated 25.10.2021).
I. File containing the noting(s) on which basis the Department of Expenditure (DoE) issued O.M. No. 7(34) -E.III(A)/71 dated 24th July 1971.
II. File containing the noting(s) on which basis DoE issued the O.M. No. 7(4) - E.III(A)/75 dated 24th March 1975.
III. File containing the noting(s) on which basis DoE issued the O.M. No. 1(30)/IC/86 dated 29th September 1988.
IV. File containing the noting(s) on which basis DoE issued the U.O. No. 7(90) E- III dated 15.10.91.
V. File containing the noting(s) on which basis DoE issued the Dy. No. 7(90)/E.III/89 dated 4.2.93.
2. (a) If the above-mentioned files were not traced back till date, the details of the action taken (as per the Public Records Act,) by the Competent Authority, Department of Expenditure for restoration of the above mentioned missing files.
(b) The details of the action taken by the competent authority to find out which employees were responsible followed by Disciplinary Acton."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.10.2022 stating as under:
2"It is informed that no information in material form is available with this branch. Therefore, the information may be treated as NIL."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.10.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 22.11.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
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: Ashwani Verma, under Secretary and CPIO appeared in person The respondent, while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed their detailed written submission dated 25.01.2024, copy of which was also sent to the appellant. The written submissions dated 25.01.2024 of the CPIO is reproduced as under:
"1. The Written Submissions of this CPIO E.III.A (Department of Expenditure) in the above mentioned 2nd Appeals are as under: -
I. The appellant vide Online RTI application dated 15.09.2022 sought information regarding action taken to trace out old files related to grant of Non Practicing Allowance to Veterinary Scientists of ICAR as the applicant was aggrieved due to failure in including NPA in the revision of the pension given to him after the implementation of 7th CPC. II. The CPIO (E.III.A), Sh Ashok Kumar, vide letter dated 13.10.2022 has informed the applicant that no information in material form is available with this Branch. Therefore, the information may be treated as Nil. III. The appellant filed an online appeal application, dated 21.10.2022. The applicant reiterated its request to provide the information under RTI Act,
205.
IV. The first appeal was disposed off by the FAA vide Order dated 22.11.2022 stating that "the CPIO (E.III.A) has rightly informed the appellant". V. It is further submitted that the appellant is a habitual information seeker which have been basically related to the above said policy matter i.e. grant of NPA benefits to Veterinary Scientists of ICAR in 7th CPC regime. Hon'ble CIC while hearing 2nd appeal (i.e.CIC/DOEXP/A/2022/643551 and Ors) on 03.03.2023 for 10 RTI applications filed by Dr. Nityananda Das stated that:
3"The appellant is further cautioned that henceforth any repetitive case on the same subject matter of grant of revision of NPA may be summarily dismissed by the Commission.
VI. Moreover, in one more instance when the complainant (Sh. Nityananda Das) filed 2nd appeal for hearing in 6 RTI applications on 18.11.2022 (i.e. CIC/DOEXP/C/2022/601766 and Ors), the Hon'ble CIC stated that "The complainant has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission and it is apparent from his submissions in each and every case that he is trying to create a fear among the CPIOs and the FAAs by pressing for penalty against them......., in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the complainant when the complainant is not in search of information but only settling his service grievances against the department by filing multiple, vexatious repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals and complaints. All the complaints are inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act."
VII. Further, Hon'ble CIC dismissing all of the 6 appeals/complaints of Sh.
Nityananda Das on 18.11.2022 stating that "Adverting to the foregoing observations, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Complainant has been rebuked by multiple benches of the Commission in the past with respect to different public authorities for the apparent misuse of the RTI Act on his part yet the Complainant appears to have not appreciated the said observations, which is rather unfortunate and appalling to note.
While dismissing the instant complaint as bereft of merit, the Commission again advises the Complainant to abstain from the repeated misuse of the RTI Act."
VIII. Considering the fact that CPIO is bound to abide by RTI Act, 2005 and in order to avoid penalty under RTI Act, the CPIO had to spend valuable time to dispose of repeated RTI application having the policy matter which was under examination in this Department at that time.
IX. In this regard, Hon'ble CIC's order No. CIC/ALDMU/A/2017/102135 dated 24.04.2017 passed by Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kesarwani Vs PIO Allahabad Museum may kindly be referred to wherein Hon'ble Commission has recommended to address the problem of harassing & repeated questions/misuse of RTI Act.
42. All the above RTI applications/1st appeals/2nd appeals are basically related to grievances of the applicant/appellant with regard to the grant of NPA benefit to Veterinary Scientists of ICAR in 7th CPC regime. The said proposal of Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) has already been agreed to vide ID Note of this Department bearing No. 12-09/2021-E.III.A dated 08.02.2023 and a copy has also been provided to the appellant.
3. The Hon'ble Information Commission is requested to kindly consider the above submissions while deciding the above said 2nd appeals of the appellant in public interest under the RTI Act, 2005."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act leaving no scope of intervention at this stage. Further, concededly, the Appellant has not sought for any relief that is permissible under the RTI Act. If the appellant still has any grievance regarding grant of Non-Practicing Allowance to Veterinary Scientists of ICAR, the same should be raised before appropriate forum. This Commission may not be treated as a grievance redressal forum. The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. In view of the above, there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 31-01-2024 5 6