Information related to electricity charges paid by DGM, BSNL and recovery made - PIO provided the information - Appellant: information given by the respondent is incorrect - CIC: permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records
Kindly provide following information related to DGM, R.K. Basu-
1- How many years Mr. R.K. Basu has spent in the telephone exchange without being in-charge of the exchange.
2- Whether he has made the payment of electricity bills to department? If yes give copies of month wise payment made.
3- If no payment has been made by him, then how much revenue loss has been suffered by the department for non-payment of electricity bill? Whether any responsibility has been fixed or not?
4- Whether any action is being taken to recover the electricity loss?
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has given incomplete & wrong information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. K. K. Shukla through VC M: 09470566844
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Prasad CPIO through VC M: 9431133888
The appellant stated that Mr. R K Basu joined the BSNL at Jamshedpur in the year 1973 as a JTO and retired as a DGM in the year 2010 and it is a unique case in which the officer was allowed to continue in the same place for 37 years. He further stated that the official was living in a quarter which was attached to the exchange building and was neither paying the electricity charges nor any HRA was being deducted from his salary and it was only when the union made a complaint that an amount Rs. 40881/- was recovered from him as arrears of electricity charges pertaining to the period July 2005 to October 2010. He alleged that misleading/incomplete information has been provided to him. The CPIO contented that the information, as available on record, has been provided. The appellant contested stating that the information supplied is based only on 5 years records whereas he needs the information from the year 1973 onwards. He further contended that there was another matter in which he had requested for the details of the HRA recovered from Mr. Basu but the information was denied on the ground that it is personal information. To a query from the Commission the CPIO stated that he will go through the records and provide the available information. The appellant requested that the matter should not be concluded but an adjournment should be given so that the CPIO is able to produce all the available information/records pertaining to the HRA and electricity charges recovered from Mr. R K Basu during his entire tenure.
Interim Decision notice:
As requested by the appellant it is decided to grant adjournment so that the full facts are brought on record. The hearing is adjourned for 15/11/2013 and further adjourned for 05/12/2013 at 4:00 PM as 15/11/2013 was declared a public holiday.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: (05/12/2013) The following were present
Appellant: Mr. K. K. Shukla through VC (M: 09470566844)
Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Verma CPIO through VC (M: 9431133888)
The appellant stated that prima facie the information given by the respondent is incorrect. He pointed out that the respondent have informed that Mr. Basu was the SDO for 7 years whereas the officer was posted in the same SSA for 37 years and resided in the same residence and was never posted as ‘exchange in-charge’ of telephone exchange at Garamnala. He further stated that the information provided relates to the period 2009 to 2010 whereas the respondent have claimed that it covers the period from 2005 to 2010. The CPIO reiterated that the information as per record has been provided and to remove any doubt from the mind of the appellant he is free to inspect the relevant records and take whatever information/documents he needs but cannot contest the action of the public authority under the RTI Act. The appellant agreed to inspect the records.
As stated by the CPIO he should permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application dated 5/5/2012 and also allow him to take photocopies/extracts therefrom, free of cost, upto 25 pages within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. After completion of inspection as aforesaid a declaration should be provided to the appellant confirming that there is/are no other record(s) available with the CPIO in the matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. K. K. Shukla v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001438/4071