Appellant: how the car allotted to Chairman of NGT was used for transporting goods on a public holiday etc. - Respondent: log book is now being maintained - CIC: warning issued for not furnishing the reply by Driver on affidavit & compliance called for
The Appellant wanted to know how the car allotted to the Chairman of NGT was used for transporting goods on a public holiday, the name of the person who travelled in the car, the list of goods brought and their purchase vouchers etc. - Respondent: the log book is now being maintained after the CIC’s order - CIC: warning issued for not furnishing the reply by the Driver on affidavit and non receipt of response from the official to whom the car was allotted; compliance called for
The matter was initially heard on 2.4.14. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:
4. The Commission after hearing both sides directs the CPIO to:
i) The Commission directs the PIO to go through the RTI application again and furnish information against points 7 to 10,
ii) The Commission directs the CPIO to obtain the response against points 11 to 15 from the driver of the car and the official to whom it was allotted, in the form of an affidavit and submit the same to the Appellant.
iii) The Commission directs the PIO to ensure the presence of the Driver concerned on the next date of hearing i.e. 22nd April, 2014 at 2.30.p.m.
iv) The Commission directs the CPIO to furnish file notings of the subject and reply under point 16, which stated that appropriate steps to check the NGT cars to prevent such violations.
5. Since the CPIO, himself, during the hearing had volunteered to furnish satisfactory reply within one week, the Commission directs him to furnish the information to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order as the additional information sought involves a little more exercise and report compliance to the Commission by 22.4.14. 6. Hearing adjourned to 22nd April 2014 at 2.30 p.m
2. Heard on 22.4.14. Appellant present. Public Authority is represented by Shri Chetan Chawla.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he has received the reply today but raised certain doubts. Accordingly, the Commission decided to adjudicate the matter point wise as given below: Points No.11 & 12
4. The Appellant wanted to know how the car allotted to the Chairman of NGT was used for transporting goods on a public holiday and wanted to know the name of the person who travelled in the car. He also wanted to know the list of goods brought and their purchase vouchers. He also sought the file noting regarding use of Chairman’s car for transporting goods. The Respondent officer submitted that they do not maintain the log book but after the CIC’s order dt. 2.4.14 had started maintaining requisition slips. In response to the query from the Appellant, the Respondent submitted that Shri Pradeep Kumar is a Multi Tasking Staff and not a regular driver and he is driving the vehicle of the Chairman for few months. The Appellant wanted to know whether Shri Pradeep Kumar was paid any OTA or granted any leave in lieu of work done on a public holiday.
5. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the requisite information as referred in Para 4 and also the relevant file notings and requisition slips to the Appellant.
6. The Commission recommends the Public Authority to circulate the letter dt.22.4.14 regarding the compliance of traffic rules to all the drivers of NGT.
7. The Commission also noted that the reply furnished by the Driver is not on affidavit and no response was received from the official to whom the car was allotted as directed vide order dt.2.4.14 and expresses its displeasure and warns the Public Authority to comply with the directions of CIC.
8. The entire exercise to be completed within fifteen days of receipt of this order including filing of two affidavits as directed vide order dt.2.4.14.
9. When the Commission queried why the driver of the vehicle was not present despite issuing specific orders in the regard, the Respondent submitted that the driver is on official duty.
10. The Commission also noted that the RTI application was transferred to Supreme Court and Traffic Police Headquarters for providing information against points 7 to 10 and 11 to 15 respectively.
11. The Commission ordered accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. National Green Tribunal in case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000246