Central Information Commission
Dinesh Kumar Chawla vs Department Of Posts on 16 April, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/175821
Dinesh Kumar Chawla v. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 04.06.2016, CPIO reply - Nil, FAO on 06.09.2016, Second appeal filed
on 09.09.2016, Hearing on 15.03.2018;
Proceedings on 17.05.2017: Both the parties are absent. Directions and Show Cause issued.
Proceedings on 15.03.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by Mr. Anand
Kumar Singh at CIC;
Date of Decision - 16.04.2018: Penalty dropped.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. That the applicant is an advocate by profession and he served a notice to one Sh. Ikramuddin, Rio D-9112, Gali No. IO, Mohanpuri, DelhiII0053 by Speed Post bearing No. ED-9553I9592 IN dated01.02.20I6 from the post office of Tis Hazari Court. In the saidarticle the applicant had served a legal notice U/s 138 of N.I. Act tothe said Sh. Ikramuddin on behalf of his client Sh. Akash Kashyap forthe dishonor of the cheque of Rs. 5 Lacs and the entire case of theapplicant is based upon the service of the said notice. Due to non-delivery of the notice to settle the case of theapplicant and on this account the client of the applicant shall sufferwith irreparable loss and injury only and only due to the reason of theDistrict Post Office, Tis Hazari. The appellant filed RTI application seeking to know about the service of the said article.
2. Vide order dated 06.09.2016, the FAA CPIO/SSPO, directed Delhi North Division, Delhi- II 0054 to transfer the RTI application to the concerned CPIO within 7 days of receipt of this order and further directed to obtain the report from the SPM. District Court PO and take necessary actionagainst concerned official on this fault and report compliance to FAA's office within fifteen days.
3. The Commission' order dated 18.05.2017:
3. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the information sought by the appellant, within 15 days from date of receipt of this order.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/175821 Page 1
4. The Commission directs the CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him/her for not complying with the orders of First Appellate Authority, within 21 days from date of receipt of this order.
Decision :
4. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, CPIO/SSPO in his written explanation submitted as under:
"This is with reference to your office notice no.- CIC/POSTS/A/2017/175821 dated 21.02.2018 received in this office on 26.02.2018 through Sub-Postmaster, District Court Post Office, Delhi-110054 vide no. DCPO/RTI/69/2017-18 dated 23.02.2018. In this regard, the following few lines are submitted for your kind consideration:-
2. The Show-Cause Notice issued by Hon'ble CIC under no.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/175821 dated 18.05.2017 was received in this office wherein directions were issued to the CPIO:-
2.1 To provide the information to the appellant within 15 days of receipt of said notice.
In this regard, it is submitted that the said information has been supplied to the appellant by this office and Shri Dinesh Kumar Chawla (Appellant) is personally satisfied on receipt of the said information.
2.2 To show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him/her for not complying with the orders of First Appellate Authority. In this context, the CPIO/undersigned would like to submit that the relevant records i.e. decision of F.A.A. dated 06.09.2016 is not traceable being an old matter. As such, it is presumed that the matter was not in the knowledge of the then CPIO. The undersigned has already formulated an enquiry team in order to fix the responsibility in this regard and suitable action would be taken against the officials at fault.
3. This office was not in receipt of initial RTI application of the applicant of Shri Dinesh Kumar Chawla dated 04.06.2016 as per available record of this office wherein he has sought the information in respect of status of article no. ED955319592IN dated 01.02.2016 booked at Tis Hazari Court Post Office Delhi- 110054 addressed to Shri IkramuddinS.o Sh. Islamuddin, D-91/2, Gali No-10, Mohanpuri, Delhi-110053 deliverable through Seelampur Post Office under administrative control of Delhi East Division New Delhi-110051. The action is being taken against the then Sub Postmaster District Court Post Office for not following the prescribed procedure as laid down under the provisions of RTI Act 2005 rules.
4. Though the aforesaid RTI application of Shri Dinesh Kumar Chawla was not received in this office. However, the delivery status was conveyed to the applicant by SPM District Court Post Office on 27.06.2016 under web based complaint no. 111808-08384 lodged on 11.06.2016 by the applicant.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/175821 Page 2
5. So far as for non-attending the hearing on 17.05.2017 by the CPIO/undersigned, it is submitted that the said notice was received in this office through Sub Postmaster District Post Office Delhi-110054 on 27.06.2017 i.e. after the date of hearing. Accordingly, the CPIO could not present himself before your good self on the date of hearing 17.05.2017. I apologize for the same being unaware of the receipt of said notice and suitable action has already been taken against the official at fault.
6. It is further submitted that the information of status of aforesaid Speed Post Article no. ED955319592IN dated 01.02.2016 has been informed to the applicant Shri Dinesh Kumar Chawla vide this office letter no. even through special messenger of this office and now the applicant is personally satisfied with the said reply given by this office as per his acknowledgment addressed to your office and copy endorsed to this office.
In view of above facts and circumstance, the following is submitted for your consideration:
i. Initial RTI application of the applicant, notice of hearing and show cause notice was not brought to the notice of CPIO/undersigned. ii. The grievance of the applicant was suitably replied by the Sub Postmaster District Court Post Office via web based complaint on 27.06.2016. iii. Proof of Delivery of said article has also been supplied to the applicant for his reference.
iv. A separate enquiry is being conducted pertaining to non-receiving as well as not putting the matter to CPIO about the notices issued by Hon'ble CIC well in time. Suitable action would be taken against the officials at fault.
The undersigned personally regret for the incidents happened in this matter with the assurance for non-occurrence of such instances henceforth. However, it is again submitted that the said information has not been supplied to the applicant and he is personally shown his satisfaction as per his acknowledgment enclosed for your kind reference. The whole case is submitted for your kind consideration in view of my above submission."
5. The appellant Shri Dinesh Kumar Chawla in his letter to the Commission submits as under:
"It is submitted that I have received information vide CPIO No. PG-II/CIC- 175821-Dinesh Kumar Chawla/2017-18 in connection with CIC order No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/175821 in respect of delivery proof of Speed Post article No. ED955319592IN dated 01.02.2016 from the CPIO, Delhi North Division, Delhi- 110054 as the article under reference had been delivered on 02.02.2016 and I am satisfied with the reply supplied by the CPIO/SSPOs, Delhi North Division, Delhi-110054.
6. The Commission considering the arguments of the respondent authority and upon perusal of records finds that sufficient information is provided and CIC/POSTS/A/2017/175821 Page 3 there is no reason to interfere in this matter. The explanation provided by the CPIO is reasonable and satisfactory, hence penalty proceedings are dropped. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/175821 Page 4