PIO was unable to explain the reasons for the delay in providing information - CIC issued a strict warning to the AD (Rectt) for not providing any reply to the appellant within the timeline prescribed under the Act & directed to provide the reply
An enquiry was held on 29/07/2015 against Sh. Buddh Sen and Sh. Mahavir Prasad but after the enquiry both of them died. The appellant has sought the following information regarding the same:
1. Whether any action was taken, based upon the findings of the enquiry, before the death of Sh. Buddh Sen and Sh. Mahavir Prasad. Provide a copy of the order issued, if any.
2. After the death of these members, whether their heirs have also been implicated in the legal proceedings. If so, what type of enquiry was done. Whether there is any time limit, provide details.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during
The appellant submitted that he had not received any satisfactory reply from the respondent yet. He further raised his grievance stating that despite disciplinary proceedings pending against the deceased employees, their dependants were appointed on compassionate basis. The CPIO submitted that their office received the RTI application on 27.05.2019 only and there was no intimation received earlier regarding the RTI application from the Ministry. On a query by the Commission he submitted that the RTI application should have been transferred to the AD(Grievances) and not to AD(Recruitment).
It was noted that the CPIO, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan did not appear for the hearing. Moreover, the AD (Recruitment) was also not present. The CPIO present during the hearing was unable to explain the reasons for the delay in providing information. This shows the negligent and lax attitude of the CPIO. Shri M.Mohan, the CPIO, SO RTI Cell of the Ministry also did not appear for the hearing despite receipt of the notice and vide letter dated 20.05.2019 he informed the AD(Rectt), Delhi Circle to ensure appearance before the Commission. The AD (Rectt) further transferred the same to SSRM, Delhi Sorting Division. However from a letter dated 20.05.2019 it appears that the RTI Cell of the Ministry had forwarded the RTI application to AD(Rectt.) on 07.04.2017. The fact remains that there was no relevant reply given till date and the application seems to have been handled in a very indifferent manner.
A strict warning is issued to the AD(Rectt) for not providing any reply to the appellant within the timeline prescribed under the Act. The CPIOs are warned to be careful with the timeline and refrain from delaying replies. The information sought by the appellant is specific and should be replied to categorically. The CPIO Shri Gaurav Kumar Saini, Senior Superintendent Railway Manager is directed to provide a revised pointwise reply, as discussed above to the Appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Jai Prakash v. Department of Posts in Decision no.: CIC/CVCOM/A/2017/161682/POSTS/00801, Date of Decision: 04/06/2019