Central Information Commission
Shiv Shanker Sachan vs Department Of Telecommunications on 19 November, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सचु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DOTEL/A/2019/636304
In the matter of:
Shiv ShankerSachan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO &Director(VIG-I))
Department of Telecommunications (DoT),
Room No. 903, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi - 110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 08/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 09/01/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 19/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 18/11/2020 Date of Decision : 18/11/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Shri L B Lal, Director & the CPIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought information regarding the guidelines/rules/orders about the disciplinary authority of ITS group A officers deployed in BSNL.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the complete information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as incomplete information was provided to him. The CPIO while giving the reply had failed to consider that the information sought was related to the officers deployed in BSNL and as per BSNL CDA RULES 2006, the Disciplinary authority has been considered as CMD BSNL forgroup A officers on deputation/deemed deputation and accordingly he has approved therecordable warning to him. The CVO, BSNL has also approved the CGM NTR as disciplinary authority for recordablewarning. So, there is confusion on the disciplinary authority of ITSGroup Aofficers deployed in BSNL. The information was asked to remove the said confusion but information provided is incomplete. He also mentioned that the FAA has also not responded to his first appeal.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 08.01.2019.On a query regarding the FAA order, the CPIO submitted that a detailed order was passed by the FAA on 18.01.2019. He was directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant and the Commission for its perusal.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as according to him, the Disciplinary authority for group A officers on deputation/deemed deputation has been considered as CMD BSNL, however, the CPIO in his reply had stated that the President of India is the Disciplinary authority for group A officers. He had also highlighted the fact that the CPIO had failed to consider the fact he had sought information about the officers on deputation/deemed deputation. Therefore, there is confusion as to who is the actual Disciplinary Authority. The Commission concurs with the submissions of the appellant and finds that the CPIO in his reply had failed to mention if the President of India is the Disciplinary authority for group A officers on deputation/deemed deputation also.
On a query to the CPIO as to who is the Disciplinary Authority for group A officers who are on deputation/deemed deputation, he explained that it is the President of India in all the casesand in the case of ITS Group A officers deployed in BSNL also, the provisions of CCS & CCA Rules will apply as was explained by the FAA in his order. He submitted that the appellant seems to be 2 confused because of the BSNL CDA Rules Annexure-I but that Rule is applicable to absorbed officers only.
At this point, the appellant submitted that if such is the case then CMD, BSNL cannot take any decision as a Disciplinary Authority and any such order passed by him acting as a Disciplinary Authority should be declared null & void, as such action is outside the scope of his jurisdiction. The Commission noted that the appellant may be right in stating so but the Commission cannot intervene in such issues as its core job is to ensure dissemination of the material information. However, the appellant is free to approach the concerned authorities for raising the said issue.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO. He is directed to send a copy of the FAA order dated 18.01.209 to the appellant and to the Commission also within 01 day from the date of issue of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दिन ंक/ Date 3