PIO: Appellant has not mentioned about his relationship with Ms. Prerna Kumari or the purpose for which he is seeking information about the account of Sukanya Samridhi Yojana - CIC found the reason for delay as reasonable & dropped the penalty proceedings
1. The appellant sought information regarding the interest rate on the accounts opened under Sukanya Samridhi Yojana. He specifically sought information on whether the compound interest on the account given every year at the rate of 9.25%, whether the interest paid was variable, how the interest was calculated for the financial year 2015-16 and 2016-17 in respect of the Sukanya Samridhi account (SSY) No. 7573252491 dated 31.03.15. The CPIO on 10.10.2017 replied that the interest will be fixed by the Government of India every year in the budget and denied the information in respect of the aforesaid account on the ground of this party. The appellant was not satisfied with the information provided and thus filed first appeal. The First Appellate Authority had directed the CPIO to provide the copy of rules regarding Sukanya Samridhi Yojana and copy of interest levied in the financial year 2015-16 and 2019-17. Non-compliance of the FAA’s order, the appellant then filed second appeal.
2. The Commission’s order dated 08.06.2018:
2. Upon perusal of the records and submissions of the respondent authority, the Commission finds that the CPIO has not complied with the directions given by the First Appellate Authority. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the complete information in the form of certified copy, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
3. The Commission also directs Mr. Ranjan Shukla, the CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for non-compliance of the FAA’s order and for not providing the complete information within the stipulated time period.
4. All the explanations must reach to this Commission on or before 09.07.2018 and matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on 02.08.2018.
3. Mr. Ranjan Shukla, Suptd. of Post Offices and CPIO, submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice issued by this Commission on 11.07.2018. He stated that the RTI application of the appellant was received at their office on 26.06.2018. It was submitted that the social security account number 7573252491 mentioned by the appellant in his RTI application belongs to Ms. Prerna Kumari whose guardian was Mr. Mrutyunjay Kumar Singh. The appellant has not mentioned about his relationship with Ms. Prerna Kumari nor the purpose for which he is seeking information about the account. He further stated that the copy of decision of Appellate Authority was not available with him and subsequently after collecting the order of Appellate Authority they provided the copy of general rules regulation issued for the scheme Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana in the year 2016 and 2017. The specific details of the SSY account of Ms. Prerna Kumari was not provided as the Appellate Authority did not direct the same and appellant did not mention about his relationship with Ms. Prerna Kumari.
4. On perusal of records and submissions, the Commission finds that the CPIO has complied with the directions of the Appellate Authority and the explanation furnished by Mr. Ranjan Shukla is reasonable. In view of this, penalty proceedings against Mr. Ranjan Shukla, CPIO are dropped.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Lakhinder Singh Appellant v. Department of Posts in Second Appeal No.: CIC/POSTS/A/2018/118591, Date of Decision – 02.08.2018