Central Information Commission
Srikumar Sridharan vs Department Of Defence on 22 June, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/MODEF/C/2020/666699
In the matter of:
Srikumar Sridharan
... Complainant
VS
1.Central Public Information Officer
Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
R.No. 218, Sena Bhawan, B Wing,
New Delhi - 110011
2. The CPIO
Tatrakshak Mukhyalaya,
CoastGuard Headquarters,
National Stadium Complex, New Delhi- 110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/01/2020 CPIO replied on : 27/02/2020 First appeal filed on : 17/02/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 16/03/2020 Complaint filed on : 19/03/2020 Date of Hearing : 16/06/2021 Date of Decision : 16/06/2021 The following were present: Complainant: Heard over phone
Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar, Under Secretary (Coord/RTI), CPIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
The Complainant has sought the following information regarding his grievance for grant of NFFU made vide letter dated 12 Sept 2019:
1. Provide a copy of the complete up to date file noting of his case.1
2. Whether CGHQ has furnished the factual report to the Defence Minister. If so, provide a copy of the same. If not, provide the present status of the case and also the reasons for the delay.
3. Provide the estimated time line for resolution of the case.
Grounds for filing Complaint The CPIO did not provide desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant submitted that since there was a delay of about 42 days in providing a reply to him, penalty may be imposed on the concerned CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the complainant on 27.02.2020.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a suitable point- wise reply was given to the complainant on 27.02.2020, however, the complainant is aggrieved as according to him the same was delayed. The FAA in his order has informed the complainant that the CPIO, US(CG) has received the RTI application on 12.02.2020 and after the receipt of the RTI application, a reply was provided within a period of 30 days as stipulated under the RTI Act.
The Commission even though is in agreement with the FAA's order that after the receipt of the RTI application, a timely reply was given, however, the question remains as to why the RTI application which was filed through online portal on 01.01.2020 was received by the CPIO, US(CG) after a gap of 42 days.
The Commission is in receipt of written submissions from the CPIO, Coordination Cell in which he had stated that the RTI application was received in the D(RTI) Cell in Ministry of Defence, which works as nodal office for receiving and forwarding all the RTI applications to the concerned Divisions. The section works under supervision of a Section officer and a dealing hand is deputed to forward all online applications. He is entrusted to supervise two important Sections viz. D(Coordination) and D(RTI). During the period of receipt of the instant RTI Application, Shri Amit Kumar, AS0, who has been dealing with online RTI cases, was deployed for temporary duty in connection with the Republic Day ceremony, 2020 for the period 01.12.2019 to 10.02.2020. In accordance with the above order, he had abstained from duty from D(RTI) for nearly two and half months. As D (RTl) section has only two dealing hands, one for offline cases and other for online cases, it was not possible to make alternate arrangement in place of Sh. Amit kumar, AS0. The 2 substitute from Establishment was also not provided as around 100 officials were deployed on the Republic Day Duty. The duty on Republic Day celebration, being a national function, is non-avoidable and it creates disruption of normaI functioning of Sections every year as a large number of manpower from MoD are deployed on Republic Day duty during the period.
The Section Officer (RTl), Smt. Manju Bisht was also to retire in January, 2020 and hence was busy with the final formalities for preparing pension papers etc. The post of Section 0fficer was lying vacant till now. He was also posted newly at the place and was having heavy work load. He prayed that the time taken in forwarding the RTI application is not attributable to any carelessness, lack of supervision or deliberate attempt on the part of the Nodal 0fficer, MoD, but due to prevailing circumstances at that point of time as mentioned above. However, inconvenience caused to the complainant is regretted.
The Commission is not convinced with the submissions of the concerned CPIO in toto as even though the public authority has many core jobs to do, however, the RTI matters cannot be left unattended as time is the essence of the Act and if timelines as prescribed under the RTI Act are not followed, the very purpose of the RTI Act gets defeated. Since there is no malafide intention on the part of the concerned PIO who was handling the RTI matters at the relevant time, the Commission is taking a lenient view in the matter. However, to avoid such situations, it is advisable that under such circumstances an interim reply should be provided to the applicants.
Decision:
In view of the above, the concerned CPIO is issued a warning to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and to ensure that timely replies are given to every applicant. He should note that in case such a lapse is repeated in future, the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3