CIC observed that the authorized representative of the appellant in the present matter was inadvertently named as the “appellant” by the Central Registry - CIC counselled the Registrar, to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), seeking information on five points, including, inter alia,
(i) whether it is correct that the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 were not applicable in the case of appellant since he had resigned from his service in the year 1970, and
(ii) if at all the appellant is entitled to the payment of the pension in any way whatsoever, then a copy of the Rules applicable in this regard.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that incomplete and misleading information was furnished by both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought.
3. Shri Akash Malik, the authorized representative of the appellant, Shri Ishwar Singh, and the respondent, Shri Ajay Pal, Assistant Commandant, CRPF, participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The authorized representative of the appellant submitted that incomplete and misleading information, in response to his RTI application, was furnished by both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA), CRPF.
5. The respondent submitted that as per the Notice of Hearing dated 05.07.2017, the appellant was named as “Shri Akash Malik” and accordingly, they had carried the file pertaining to the matter filed by Shri Akash Malik. The respondent further submitted that he was not carrying the file pertaining to the matter of Shri Ishwar Singh and therefore, requested the Commission to adjourn the matter to enable him to effectively present his case before the Commission.
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the authorized representative of the appellant in the present matter was inadvertently named as the “appellant” by the Central Registry of the Commission. The Commission, therefore, would like to counsel the Registrar, Central Information Commission, to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.
7. The Commission further directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a fresh Notice of Hearing to both the appellant and the respondent. The matter is adjourned to 01.08.2017 at 01:45 p.m.
8. Copy of the interim decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Ishwar Singh v. Central Reserve Police Force Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000651/CRPFO Dated 11.07.2017