Central Information Commission
P Madhurika Rao vs Tariff Commission on 25 August, 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/TRCOM/A/2022/604810
P. Madhurika Rao ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Promotion of Industry
and Internal Trade, Tariff Commission,
RTI Cell, 7th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi-110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/08/2022
Date of Decision : 23/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 13/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 08/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 17.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"I, Madhurika Rao had sent an email to the then DDO on 6th August 20121 regarding a cheque of Rs.95000 and details of license fee for the period April 1991 to August 2005. Till date I have not received any reply.1
It is a kind submission to provide me the following information: Why, the cheque of Rs.95000/- debited from my account on 4th April 2021 has not been transferred to the Directorate of Estates. The transfer of amount will enable Directorate of Estates to refund the excess amount to me.
Kindly provide me the details of license fee deducted from my salary from April 1991 to August 2005 which are available in the Pay Bill Register."
The CPIO furnished a detailed reply to the appellant on 13.10.2021 stating as follows:-
".....the available Pay Bill Register (PBR), the Licence Fee has been deducted from the salary of Smt. Madhurika Rao, Ex-Senior Systems Analyst as follows:
S.No. Period Deduction of Licence Fee (Rs)
1. October 2001 to November 2002 On Deputation (including 2 month
Medical Leave)
2. December 2002 to August 2005 181 Per Month
It is pertinent to mention here that Smt. Madhurika Rao, Ex-Senior Systems Analyst deposited a Cheque of Rs 95000/- vide bearing No. 718691 of Syndicate Bank dated 21.01.2021. which was deposited in Central Bank of India, Udyog Bhawan, in Pay & Accounts Office's (PAO) Bank account vide Challan No. 818 dated 31.03.2021."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.11.2021. FAA's order dated 08.12.2021 held as under:-
2. "As regards the query of Rs 95000/- debited from the Account of Smt. Madhurika Rao on 04.01.2001, in lieu of arrear of Licence Fee, it is pertinent to mention that a letter was sent to Pay & Accounts Office (PAO) on 09.09.2021 (copy annexed) requesting to deposit the amount of Rs. 95000 to the Estate Office account.
3. As regards the information w.r.t. details of Licence Fee deduction sought from April 1991 to August 2005, it is stated that as per Record Retention Schedule 2012 (RRS) by Department of Administration Reforms Public Grievance (DAR&PG), the office copies of Establishment pay bills and related schedules are to be maintained for a period of 20 years (copy annexed).
Therefore, the records pertaining to PBR prior to 2001 have not been 2 maintained. However, the details of deduction of her license fee as shown in PBR for the period October 2001 to August 2005 have already been furnished to the appellant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of incomplete and misleading reply by the CPIO by not giving complete details about the deductions of license fees from the Appellant's account for the period April, 1991 to Sept., 2001. She further insisted on the following arguments -
"...Pertinently, in the present case the First Appellate Authority while deciding the Appeal filed by the Complainant has neither provided the sanction of the Competent Authority for the destruction of the Pay Bill Register prior to 2001 nor has he provided any details about the destruction of the said records.
It is worth mentioning that, as per the RRS 2012, the records pertaining to the period starting from January, 2001 to September, 2001 could have been destroyed only after 31st December, 2021 i.e. the last day of the financial year when the stipulated period 20 years would have been over. In the present case however, the First Appellate Authority has failed to provide information for the period starting from January, 2001 to September, 2001 on the pretext that the said information is 20 years old even though the same was sought much before 31st December 2021..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Not present.
The Appellant narrated in great detail her grievance regarding non receipt of details of the deduction of license fees from her salary for the period from April 1991 to August 2005 which in fact, came to her notice only after she was superannuating and was asked to pay a hefty amount of Rs 95,000 in lieu of Licence fees arrears. She further expressed her dissatisfaction with the factum of denial of information for the period of January, 2001 to September, 2001 on the plea of records being weeded out on the ground that these are to be maintained for a period of 20 years. In this regard, the Commission counselled the Appellant that the issue raised by her in the matter pertains to her grievance for non-3
accounted of deductions of licence fees from her salary which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. To a query from the Commission, the Appellant apprised that she had also filed a representation through the administrative channel, however, no fruitful response has been received till date.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding alleged non accountal of deductions of license fees from her salary.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for in the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, her attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) 4 Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding non accountal of deductions from her salary is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, 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).
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."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the factual reply tendered by the CPIO coupled with disclosure of relevant available information is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.5
In view of the above, no action is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises her to pursue her grievance through online PG portal of the concerned Ministry/Public Authority.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the present CPIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof and also non-submission of any written submission in response to instant case. Such casual approach of the CPIO tantamount to sheer disregard to the hearing proceedings and is viewed adversely by the Commission. In view of the this, the CPIO is hereby directed to send his written submission along with supporting documents, if any for their absence during hearing within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal 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