Central Information Commission
V V Krishna Sarma vs Central Bureau Of Communication(Cbc) on 3 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBCOM/A/2023/138815
V V Krishna Sarma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Communication
Soochna Bhawan, Phase - V, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The CPIO Central Bureau of Communication,
Zonal Office, Kendriya Bhawan, Sector - H,
Aliganj, Lucknow - 226024
3. The CPIO Central Bureau of Communication,
Navalar Nagar, Chepauk, Triplicane,
Chennai - 600005 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.12.2024
Date of Decision : 02.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 22.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 19.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.09.2023
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 20.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"(1) Copy of appeal (with enclosures, if any) filed by Uol (CBC) in W.P. (C) No. 2146/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. (2) Copy of reply (with enclosures), if any, filed by the Respondents in W.P.(C) No. 2146/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. (3) Copy of rejoinder (with enclosures), if any, filed by the Uol (CBC) in W.P. (C) No. 2146/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. (4) Copies of all ACRS/APARs of all Copyists (as per list enclosed) in S&DD throughout their service i.e. from the date of joining to date of retirement, period/year wise.
(5) Names of Reporting and Reviewing Officers in all the above cases with brief nature of work for each period/year name wise for all 22 Copyists in the proforma attached.
(6) Copy of proposal/note dated 09.04.2014 regarding cadre review of all Staff Artistes in S&DD.
(7) Copy of order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 1629/2009.
(8) Copy of order dated 12.10.2015 issued by S&DD for cadre restructure of Staff Artistes posts since 01.01.1996.
(9) Copies of all promotion orders issued by S&DD for all categories in the year 2016 during the review of all (688) pay fixations. (10) Order dated 10.08.2009 was annexed with the rejoinder affidavit dated 11.08.200 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 1629/2009 with a commitment in para 20 of the said rejoinder to undertake cadre review of all categories including administrative category. Hence, information may please be given about the action taken in this regard to fulfill the commitment made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The above information/documents are required to present/establish the facts for cadre review of administrative staff/officers that the Copyists in S&DD always worked under the control of administrative/ministerial staff/officers in S&DD and their nature of work is identical to the nature of work rendered by the administrative/ministerial staff/officers in S&DD."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.05.2023 stating as under:
"मु यालय, नई द ल के प सं० सीबीसीआईडीसं०
आर०ट ०आई/05/20/2023 दनांक-09/05/2023 जो ी वी०वी० के०शमा" के
Page 2 of 6
सूचना के अ&धकार से संबं&धत है और इस काया"लय म- दनांक-
15/05/2023 को .ा/त हुआ है , के स0दभ" म- अवगत कराना है 3क 4ब0द ु सं 04 और 05 के अतग"त मांगी गई सूचनाएं सूचना का अ&धकार अ&ध6नयम 2005 के Section 8 (1) (j) के तहत नह ं .े7षत क9 जा सकती है ।"
The CPIO/Director furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.06.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard it is stated that Queries No. 1 to 3 & 6 to 10 are not related to this Office. The Hqrs. CBC may be approached for procuring the details.
As regards, Queries No. 4 & 5:
1. Out of the 22 Copyist serving/retired, one Mr. G. Padmanabhan had served in the Capacity of Copyist in the erstwhile S&DD, Chennai and retired from the Govt. service on attaining superannuation on 31.12.2003.
2. The APAR/CR of Shri G. Padmanabhan had not been maintained in this Office all through his service but would used to be sent to the erstwhile S&DD Hqrs. New Delhi and therefore, this Office may not be able to provide the APAR details of Shri G. Padmanabhan (Retired) to the RTI seeker. The applicant is therefore, requested to approach CBC (Central Bureau of Communication), New Delhi for providing the same as then S&DD had been merged with then DFP & DAVP (I&B Media units) and led to the formation of Central Bureau of Communication ever since the merger of Media units, including S&DD in 2018. CROB"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.07.2023, held as under.
"Whereas, Shri V. V. Krishna Sarma vide his RTI application dated 20.04.2023 had inter alia sought documents under RTI Act, 2005 i.e. copies of all ACRs/ APARS of all Copyist in S&DD throughout their service i.e. from the date of joining to date of retirement etc. Whereas, CPIO, Vigilance Section, CBC vide his reply dated 23.05.2023 denied information in terms of Section 8 (1) (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 3 of 6
Whereas, on going through the facts and reply furnished by the CPIO, it is found that the CPIO had given reply based on the orders on the subject.
Whereas, based on the explanation given in the appeal, the available documents of 10 persons as asked for under the RTI, are being forwarded herewith.
The appeal dated 19.06.2023 is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, CPIO-cum-DD, Shri Bhupender, UDC, attended the hearing in person.
Ms. Monika Sharma, CPIO-cum-Administrative Officer and Ms. Leela Meenatchi, CPI-cum-Director, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in point No. 4 and 5 of the RTI Application.
Ms. Leela Meenatchi, CPIO-cum-Director, submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in point No. 4 and 5 of the RTI Application is personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, their office has made sincere efforts to locate the relevant records but the same is not traceable in the record files and are believed to have been weeded out by the erstwhile Song & Drama Division (S&DD), Chennai.
The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant to explain his locus or to establish larger public interest in seeking third party information, the Appellant failed to provide a cogent reply.
A written submission has been received from Ms. M. Leela Meenatchi, CPIO- cum-Director, vide letter dated 18.12.2024, a copy of which has been sent to Page 4 of 6 the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"With reference to the above RTI application dated 20.04.2023 of Shri V. V. Krishna Sarma, reply has been sent vide this office letter No. F-12013/1/CBC/RTI/2023 dated 12th June, 2023 (copy enclosed).
As has been mentioned in the above said reply, as regards queries 4 & 5, the following is submitted:
1. Out of the 22 copyists, only one copyist Mr. G. Padmanabhan served in erstwhile Song & Drama Division, Chennai and retired from Govt. Service on Superannuation on 31.12.2003.
2. The ACRS/APARS of Shri G. Padmanabhan are believed to have been maintained at the Song & Drama Division Headquarters, New Delhi, rather than at the Song & Drama Division, Chennai. The erstwhile Song & Drama Division was merged with the Directorate of Field Publicity (DFP) and the Directorate of Advertisement and Visual Publicity (DAVP) in 2018 to form the Regional Outreach Bureau, which was subsequently renamed the Central Bureau of Communication (CBC) in June 2022.
However, CBC, Chennai, has no documentary evidence to substantiate this position following the merger and integration of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting offices in 2018.
3. This Office regrets to inform that no records pertaining to the ACRS/APARs of Mr. G. Padmanabhan are available. Given that it has been over two decades since his retirement, these records are believed to have been weeded out by the erstwhile Song & Drama Division (S&DD), Chennai. Notably, the erstwhile S&DD did not submit any records to this Office (subsequently merged into the Central Bureau of Communication) regarding the weeding out of the said ACR/APAR file. It is further believed that the inability to locate these records is partly due to significant damage sustained during the heavy downpour in November 2015. During this period, while shifting the S&DD office from Kodambakkam, Chennai, to Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai, many important old files and documents stored in cardboard boxes were drenched and damaged beyond recognition. Additionally, following the integration of the three departments-S&DD, DFP, and DAVP-in 2018, efforts were made to clear old files to accommodate office machinery, stationery, and staff seating arrangements. During this process, many obsolete files and equipment were weeded out as per a detailed list. However, it is submitted that even in this list, the old files of the erstwhile S&DD, including the ACR/APAR records, were found to be missing.
In this regard, this Office respectfully submits that the details pertaining to the Copyist are neither available nor traceable. However, the Service Book of the retired official is securely maintained in this Office and can be produced before the appropriate forum, if so desired.
Furthermore, this Office is prepared to write to the retired official at the residential address recorded in the Service Book, requesting him to provide copies of the ACRs, if available in his possession and if he has no objection to sharing the same.
Page 5 of 6In view of the circumstances outlined above, this Office humbly seeks appropriate directions for the necessary further action in relation to queries 4 and 5 raised by the applicant."
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the Appellant is contesting on point No.
4 and 5 of the RTI Application. The Commission is of the view that the CPIO has furnished a suitable reply on points No. No. 4 and 5 of the RTI Application, based on available records. Since there is no infirmity in the reply sent by the Respondent, no cause of action subsists in this case under the RTI Act for further adjudication.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)