Central Information Commission
N Sridevi vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 21 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/CAGIN/C/2024/622646
N Sridevi ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Comptroller & Auditor
General, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 19.03.2024 FA : 22.04.2024 Complaint : 28.05.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 14.05.2025
Date of Decision: 20.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
The following information in respect of O/o. AG(Audit), Telangana, Hyderabad may please be provided:
1. Cadre wise Sanctioned Strength.
2. Cadre wise Persons in Position (Persons in position should include the persons sent on deputation to other offices/departments and, exclude the persons presently on deputation with O/o. AG (Audit), Telangana, Hyderabad).Page 1 of 4
3. Number of officials (cadre wise) deployed from the O/o. AG (Audit), Telangana, Hyderabad to O/o. PAG (Audit), AP, Vijayawada on deputation basis.
4. Number of officials (cadre wise) sent on deputation to other offices/departments (other than AP office).
Also please provide soft copies of Orders/Instructions of C&AG of India regarding deployment of officials on deputation basis from O/o. AG (Audit), Telangana to O/o. PAG (Audit), AP, Vijayawada.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 22.04.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 28.05.2024.
4. The Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Jishnu J. Raju, CPIO, Uphar Sharma, Accounts Officer, Gaurav, AAO, attended the hearing in-person.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that it was not a case of non-response and they had furnished the documents sought in the RTI application on 10.04.2024. The written explanations submitted by the CPIO with regard to claim of non-response by the complainant, are reproduced as under:
"Ms. N Sridevi filed an RTI application dt: 19.3.24 through RTIMIS portal thereby seeking information regarding sanctioned strength & person in position in all the cadres and number of officials (cadre wise) sent/deployed on deputation to/from, in respect of O/o the AG (Audit) Telangana. As the information sought pertained to O/o PAG(Audit). Telangana, the RTI application was transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the said office vide this office letter no. 848-RTI/2024 dated 20.03.2024 (copy enclosed).
Subsequently, Ms. N Sridevi filed 1st appeal on 22.4.2024 stating that she did not receive any information sought vide her RTI application dt: 19.3.24. The cited Ist appeal was also transferred vide this office letter no. 1238-RTI/2024 dated Page 2 of 4 24.04.2024 (copy enclosed) to the FAA of the Oro the AG (Audit) Telangana, as the RTI application was transferred u/s 6(3) Vide complaint preferred before the Hon'ble CIC, the appellant has requested that information sought in RTI application may be provided to her. In this context, it is submitted that each CPIO of various offices in IAAD are independent in discharging their duties as per provisions of the RTI Act and once the RTI application is transferred u/s 6(3) to another public authority, it is responsibility of the public authority to furnish the information, to whom the RTI was transferred However, it was confirmed from the CPIO, O/o the AG (Audit) Telangana that requisite information iro. all the points was furnished to the appellant by O/o the AG (Audit) Telangana vide its letter no. AG (Audit/TS/Legal cell/RTI/SD/2023-24 dt: 10.4.24 (copy enclosed) well within a prescribed period of 30 days. A copy of the same is also being furnished to the appellant on his email."
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that CPIO replied to the complainant on 10.04.2024. In view of the written explanations submitted by the CPIO and proof of having responded to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit, the complainant's claim of non-response is not found sustainable. Further, in the absence of the Complainant to plead her case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 20.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Page 3 of 4 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi - 110124
2. N Sridevi Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)