It was noted by the CIC that invalid transfer was done & that too not in the proper format; The then PIO of CVC was warned - CIC: The PIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed, more stringent action can be taken against him
The appellant vide RTI application dated 09.12.2016 sought information on three points as under:
1. Status of complaint dated 16.08.2016 against Shri A.K. Atrea, General Manager, NTPC.
2. Copy of response received on the above mentioned complaint.
3. Action taken on the above mentioned complaint. The CPIO replied on 09.03.3017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 17.03.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 17.04.2017. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 25.05.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Smt. Rolley, Director cum CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission
During the hearing, the respondent PIO submitted that they had received the RTI application dated 09.12.2016 on 14.12.2016 and they had transferred the same to NTPC and provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 09.03.2017 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)’s order dated 17.04.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that invalid transfer was done and that too it was not in the proper format which is deplorable for which the then CPIO needs to be issued a warning.
The then respondent CPIO is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, present address, mobile no., place of posting and designation of the CPIOs working at the relevant post in December, 2016 for record. The present respondent CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this warning to the then CPIO and a copy of the service of the above said warning be submitted to the Commission within 10 days of the receipt of the order.
It was also noted that proper reply was not provided. Revised reply should be provided to the appellant. Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply as discussed during the hearing complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
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. With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Citation: R M Kulshreshtha v. Central Vigilance Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2017/138248, Date of hearing: 24.08.2018