The effective date of appellant’s promotion to EE after compliance of CAT order was sought - CIC took a very adverse view of non-application of mind by the Respondent in transferring the RTI Application when the information sought was available with them
The Complainant sought to know the effective date of his promotion to EE after compliance of Hon’ble CAT orders and name and designation of CPIO & FAA of the concerned section with their office address.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present on phone.
Respondent (1): Not present.
Respondent (2): P.V. Rao, Director (CRO) & CPIO, Central Record Office, Tigris Road, Delhi Cantt.-10 present in person.
Complainant stated that he had sought the effective date of promotion with reference to the office letter No.A/41025/AE/95-96/E1B(O) dated 09.03.1997 of Director(Pers)/E1(DPC), MES, E-in-C’s Branch. He has already got information of Central Record Office regarding effective date of promotion but wants the date of promotion on the basis of minutes of the DPC on the basis of above letter. For this purpose, he had submitted the RTI Application to Director (Pers)/E1(DPC), MES, E-in-C’s Branch, New Delhi. Respondent (2) submitted that he received the case papers from Director (Pers)/E1(DPC), MES, E-in-C’s Branch only after getting Commission’s notice.
Commission based on the nature of relief sought in the present matter treats it as Second Appeal as it has been inadvertently registered as Complaint by the Registry of CIC.
Respondent (2) is directed to procure information from Respondent (1) regarding effective date of promotion on the basis of letter No.A/41025/AE/95-96/E1B(O) dated 09.03.1997 of Director(Pers)/E1(DPC), MES, E-in-C’s Branch and send it to the Appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order.
Commission takes very adverse view of non application of mind by the Respondent (1) in transferring the RTI Application to Respondent (2) when the information sought was available with them. Respondent (1) has also violated the provisions of the RTI Act by transferring the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act within the same public authority i.e. from E1 DPC to E1 B (P&T-1) as well as for not attending the hearing.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Citation: Virendra Kumar v. Dir (Pers)/E 1 MES Engineer - in - Chief’s Branch in File No. CIC/SS/C/2013/900562/SD Date of Decision:17/02/2017