Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In response to our show cause notice Director, APFSL, has in his letter of 28-7-09 submitted as follows:

"Superintendent of Police, CBI in his letter dated 11.2.2008 has intimated that the matter is sub-judice and the request of the Dharambir Khattar for supply of the same documents/ information/ articles has already been turned down by the competent court and the stand taken by this office in not supplying the document is strictly as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It is mentioned that the hard disks of CBI lying with APFSL are the court properties and the APFSL under no circumstances can provide the copies of there of to the accused person or others without permission by orders of the Trial Court. The disclosure of such information will not only the contempt of court, but it will also impede the process of prosecution of offenders."

Accordingly, CPIO, APFSL refused the information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act only. The delay in response has been explained in light of the correspondence with SP, CBI on whether the information could be disclosed. The third party i.e. SP, CBI's request that the information may not be supplied u/s 8 (1) (h) was made by the SP in his letter of 27-6-07. This resulted in a reply being sent to appellant Shri Bhayana only on 19-7-07.

1

The complaint heard by us was with regard to failure of CPIO, AP, FSL to reply to Shri Madhu Sudan Bhayana's RTI request of 17-4-07. However, it is clear that the matter has only been referred to the SP, CBI on receipt of the complaint notice served by this Commission of 8-5-09. In other words CPIO APFSL has taken no steps to respond to the application of Shri Bhayana of 17-4-07 to which an answer was due on 17-5-07. Nevertheless, we find that an interim reply has been sent to Shri Madhu Sudan Bhayana by PIO, Shri G.V. Jagdamba, Assistant Director, O/o APFSL, Hyderabad on 18-6-07 informing him as follows:

In this case the show cause notice has been replied to by the Director, AP, FSL, although it was clearly addressed to the CPIO. It is not the Director who is liable for penalty. However, Shri G.V. Jagdamba was given an opportunity to show cause through video conferencing as to why he should not be penalised. This he could do through video conferencing had he so chosen. Failing this it must be presumed that he has no reasonable cause to explain the delay in responding. DDO, AP, FSL, Hyderabad will deduct this amount of Rs. 8000/- from the salary of November, 2009 of Shri G.V. Jagdamba, Assistant Director, APFSL, Hyderabad by 3.12.'09 and deposit the same with Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1, Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-110001 under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, CIC, New Delhi. With these orders this complaint may now be treated as closed Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.