Respondent: there was some record indicating that the file had been sent to the BD branch & therefore, PIO informed the appellant accordingly; on a thorough search, the file could not be located - CIC: Compensation of Rs. 750/- granted for casual handling
12 Dec, 2014Respondent: there was some record indicating that the file had been sent to the BD branch & therefore, PIO informed the appellant accordingly; on a thorough search, the file could not be located - CIC: RTI application has been handled in a very casual manner & a compensation of Rs. 750/- granted u/s 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; for the loss and detriment suffered
Information sought:
The appellant wants a copy of Postal Directorate’s entire File no. 31-2/2010-PE-II.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Jaswinder Singh through VC
Respondent: Mr. Harendra Singh FAA, Maj. S N Dave CPIO, Mr. H R Rana CPIO & Mr. Gulshan Kumar. The CPIO stated that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application dated 24/12/2012 (viz. Postal Directorate’s File no. 31-2/2010-PE-II) is not traceable. He further stated that at the time the RTI application was received there was some record indicating that the file had been sent to the BD branch and accordingly the CPIO had given his reply but on receipt of 1st appeal a thorough search was conducted but the file could not be located. He added that a search bill was also subsequently issued by the department but the file remains untraced. The appellant pointed out that the respondent have been extremely callous in dealing with the matter which is apparent from their reply dated 28/12/2012 in which even his name has been incorrectly spelt. He further stated that the respondent vide their letter 04/04/2013 had enclosed the extract of the peon book through which the said file was claimed to have been transferred to the CGM BD and it was much later that they admitted that the file could not be traced.
Decision notice:
The information sought by the appellant is not traceable. The CPIO is accordingly directed to furnish an appropriate declaration to the appellant confirming that the file is not traceable within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. From the foregoing it is apparent that the appellant’s RTI application has been handled in a very casual manner. For the inconvenience caused to him, he deserves to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act we direct the department to compensate him by an amount of Rs.750/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Jaswinder Singh v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001888/5895