Information about the marks scored by the appellant in the written examination and interview etc. at RailTel was sought - CIC: Submit a report on the Joint Inspection signed by the respondent CPIO, duly countersigned by the appellant
The appellant vide RTI application dated 06.05.2016 sought information on 14 points; break-up of the marks scored by him in the written examination held on 07.11.2015, break-up of the marks scored by him in the interview and performance review, copy of the recommendation on his application dated 05.02.2016, file notings relating to the grant of extension to him, definition of ‘probation’ and ‘extended probation’, copy of the HR policy, 2012 approved by Board of Director (BOD) of Railtel etc.
The CPIO provided para-wise reply on 25.05.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed first appeal on 30.05.2016.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide its order dated 28.06.2016 held as follows:
“It is observed that the applicant has already approached different legal authorities like the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and also the Delhi High Court for redressal of the same grievance. Accordingly, at this stage, it is not feasible to consider/ furnish any additional information till the matter is sub- judice.”
The appellant being aggrieved with the above FAA’s order filed second appeal before this Commission on 28.07.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Appellant : Present
Respondent : CPIO, Shri S.C. Hans, Addl. GM(A)
During the hearing the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite information vide their letter dated 25.05.2016 which is just and proper and the case should be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent on point nos. 4, 6, 8,9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the RTI application.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was not provided on some of the points contained in the said RTI application. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant on point no. 4 of the RTI application. The portion of the document related to the candidate 3 should be provided by way of certified true copy by masking the names of other candidates under section 10 (severability clause) of the RTI Act. Complete information on point no. 6 i.e. circular, policy etc. should be provided to the appellant. Information on point no. 8 e.g. file noting of the approved HR policy of the board of directors is disclosable under the Act. On point no. 9, reply is just and proper. On point no. 10, copy of the document containing the administrative delegation of powers in the Railtel should be provided to the appellant. On point no. 12, copy of the document relating to the expenditure incurred should be provided. On point no. 13, a joint inspection facility should be provided to the appellant and information as available on record should be provided as the respondent CPIO submitted during the hearing that information sought for on this point is scattered in various files and voluminous in nature, hence cannot be provided easily. On point no. 14, the reply is just and proper as this point is not covered u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.
It is also noted that reply of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) as quoted above is not proper as it has mentioned some extraneous things while passing the order which are not relevant under the RTI Act, i.e. the candidate’s approaching different fora for redressal of his grievances.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided on some of the points raised in the said RTI application, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply on point nos. 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the said RTI application as discussed above & complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
The respondent CPIO is directed to fix a joint inspection on point no. 13 under the personal supervision of the respondent CPIO, Shri S.C. Hans, Addl. GM(A) on a mutually convenient date and at mutually convenient time and place. Based on the joint inspection, copies of records as selected by the appellant are to be provided then and there to the appellant free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act. The action is to be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
After the Joint Inspection is over, a report on the Joint Inspection signed by the respondent CPIO, duly countersigned by the appellant with his remark(s), if any is to be submitted within 7 days thereafter to the Commission for perusal and record. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Citation: Deepak Kerketta v. RailTel Corporation of India Limited in File No.: CIC/RTCOI/A/2016/297650-AB, Date of hearing : 20.09.2017