Central Information Commission
Preetam Singh Dhingia vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 17 October, 2019
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
Decision no.: CIC/HNBGU/A/2018/128278/01875
File no.: CIC/HNBGU/A/2018/128278
In the matter of:
Preetam Singh Dhingia
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Hemwati Nanadan Bhauguna Garhwal University
Srinagar, Garhwal- 246 174, Uttrakhand
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 07/11/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 26/12/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 26/03/2018 Second Appeal dated : 23/04/2018 Date of Hearing : 16/10/2019 Date of Decision : 16/10/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri A.K Mohanty, Joint Registrar and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. What are the rights given to In-Charge, Assistant Main Store (Cleanliness) and the details of the responsibilities given to him.
2. For how many hours the In-Charge does the work relating to store operations.
3. Designation of the officer responsible for the inter-departmental transfer of the employees.
4. And other related information.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant contested the CPIO's reply in respect of points no. 3 and 7. In respect of point no. 7 he stated that no information was given. In respect of point no. 3 of the RTI application he stated that the reply given is misleading. The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply was given on 15.12.2017 except on point 7 of the RTI application. He further submitted that vide letter dated 05.10.2019 an appropriate reply was given in respect of point no. 7 also enclosing the copies of salary bills by the Finance officer.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, is noted that the Finance officer had not provided the requisite reply despite the FAA's order which is totally unacceptable. However, now, complete information has been given. In respect of point no. 3 also the CPIO has provided a categorical reply vide letter dated 05.10.2019. Hence, there is no scope for further intervention.
Decision:
The Finance Officer (the deemed PIO) is issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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 2