Central Information Commission
Kamal Dhingra vs Csir-Hrdg, New Delhi on 19 May, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/CHRDG/A/2022/651505
In the matter of
Kamal Dhingra
... Appellant
VS
1. CPIO
Human Resource Development Group,
CSIR Complex, Library Avenue, Pusa,
New Delhi - 110012
2. CPIO,
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research,
Anusnadhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 04/07/2022 CPIO replied on : 17/08/2022 First appeal filed on : 04/08/2022, 17/08/2022 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal filed on : 22/09/2022 Date of Hearing : 18/05/2023 Date of Decision : 18/05/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: S.A Hasan, Chief Scientist and CPIO, present over VC alongwith Vandana D Singh, Under Secretary, CSIR 1 Information Sought:
The Appellant in his second appeal has sought the following information on points no. 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 & 18:
8. Staff car maintenance details of CSIR Hqrs & CSIR Complex from 12.11.2007 to 31.12.2013 and from 16.10.2018 to 30.04.2022. Provide details of expenditure on maintenance of staff cars month-wise. Give detailed information clearly mentioning details of spare part replaced, amount paid in procuring the new spare parts, date of purchase, action taken on damaged spare part, give details of action taken on all the damaged spare parts, any other amount spent on maintenance giving full details.
9. From 12.11.2007 to 31.12.2013 and from 16.10.2018 to 30.04.2022 give details of taxi/ private car/ DLY Car hired for CSIR Hqrs & CSIR Complex. Give details of each and every private car/taxi hired, hired duration, amount spent on each private car/taxi hired per day, details of the trip, mentioning destination and start point, total no. of kilometres used, name of the official using hired private car/taxi, date of usage, official reason for using the hired private car/taxi, etc.
10. From 1.1.2017 till today (in a daily format), provide details of staff car trips to non-official places i.e. staff car used by officers from office to residence or used from residence to office or from office to any private place. Provide details of staff car usage clearly mentioning name of the officer, date of usage, start point and destination point, no. of kilometres used, expenditure incurred on the trip i.e. petrol cost (approx.), reason for allowing staff car for private purpose. Provide all approval slips of the said trips of such officers.
11, 14 and 18. Other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information on point no. 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 & 18.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the CPIO had provided a reply after 30 days. Moreover, the FAA's order was not complied with. He also alleged that the CPIO is in a habit of providing reply enclosing documents from different Section and not putting his own signature in the reply. He also pointed out that 2 some of the transfer of RTI applications were found to be to irrelevant Sections.
The CPIO submitted that relevant information was provided in the month of September 2022 also via e-mail. He also submitted vide written submissions dated 16.05.2023 that the appellant was transferred to CSIR-CSIO Chandigarh on his promotion to the higher post of PPS as per the policy of the CSIR applicable to common cadre officers and there is no malafide in it. In this regard, he submitted a copy of the transfer posting policy and the posting orders of the officers vide which the appellant was transferred. He summed up stating that the appellant's action of adopting RTI route to get himself transferred back to New Delhi would not bring him desired results.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 20.07.2022 replied to the appellant and stated in respect of points no. 11 and 14 that the sought for information is not available in EMR-1. In respect of point no. 18 the CPIO replied that list of other cadre is NIL as on date.
Furthermore, in respect of points no. 8,9 and 10 the CPIO had provided a point-wise reply. In respect of point no. 8 the expenditure details were given. In respect of point no. 9 the process of payment was informed. In respect of point no. 10 it was replied that staff car log book details can be perused individually.
The Commission observed that the CPIO's reply was proper and the appellant could not explain in his second appeal as to on what ground he considered the reply on points no. 8-11, 14 and 18 as not proper, The appellant submitted that he received information on points no. 9 and 10. He pressed for information on the remaining points as mentioned in his second appeal. The CPIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant requires collation of documents from different departments, which involves disproportionate diversion of resources.
3Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission could not find any scope for providing any relief to the appellant. The CPIO has provided suitable reply as per the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4