Compensation for delay in deciding the appeal by FAA
A Postal Assistant was proceeded against departmentally and inflicted a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- apart from being deprived of ACP benefits. He filed a RTI application seeking to know the time period for which ‘Distribution of Work’ (DOW) in Cantonment Head Post Office was ‘in practice’ and the time period for which it was ‘not in practice’. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that DOW was ‘in practice’ at the relevant time. The appellant submitted that the SSPOs, Kanpur City Division, had held that ‘Distribution of Work’ (DOW) in Cantonment HPO was ‘not in practice’ at the relevant time and punishment was inflicted on him primarily on this premise. The appellant contended that the stand taken by SSPOs, Kanpur City Division, was totally contradictory to the information supplied to him by the PIO. He wanted the PIO to clarify whether DOW was in practice or was not in practice at the relevant time in clear and categorical terms. On the first appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order which it was required to do in 30 days time.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission observed that there is a significant contradiction in the information provided by PIO and directed the PIO to re-visit the matter and give correct and categorical information to the appellant. The Commission noted that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) took over 17 months in its disposal while the prescribed time-limit is 30 days time as per section 19 (6) of the RTI Act. Further, the FAA did not address the core issue of contradictory stands taken by the CPIO and SSPOs, Kanpur City Division, in her order. Holding that it has caused detriment to the appellant, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 8000/- to the appellant under section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Sudhir Kumar Tripathi v. CPMG in file no. CIC/LS/A/2011/000457
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/119
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission