Authority for restriction of TA bill was sought - CIC: Though it appears that what was sanctioned was as per the appellant’s entitlement, the authority needs to be properly clarified to the appellant; Provide a detailed explicit explanation
3 Apr, 2023Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with reference to sanction of his permanent TA claim which has been restricted to 2 AC train fare vide CDA(BR) conveyed vide letter no. BR/399/TADA/LTC/SWTK/IV dated 14/09/2018:
1. Provide a copy of authority for restricting his claim to 2nd AC train fare instead of restricting the same to shortest route of his entitlement i.e. Air Travel.
2. Provide a copy of authority for deduction of taxi fare of Rs.3060/- (Rs.1560 and Rs.1500) against the said TA claim.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal stated that he has not received the correct information. He however remained absent despite due service of the notice of hearing delivered to him on 06.03.2023 vide speed post no. ED911547239IN.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply already given. When asked to explain regarding the air fare applicable, he clarified that what was given was partly air fare and partly train fare. He was informed that this is not clear from the reply.
Observations:
From a perusal of the record of the case, it is noted that both the CPIO & the FAA have given appropriate replies on both the points. However, from the reply of the CPIO it appears that it is the lowest air fare that has been taken into account and not the train fare as stated by the appellant in his second appeal. During the hearing he explained that the restriction is partly based on the air fare and partly on the train fare. Though it appears that what was sanctioned was as per the appellant’s entitlement still point no 1 needs to be properly clarified to the appellant. The second point regarding the taxi fare has been explained properly in terms of the appellant’s entitlement.
Decision:
In view of the reply given by the CPIO for point no. 1, a further more detailed explicit explanation has to be given for point no. 1. This should be provided to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Prathipati Bhanu Prasad v. O/o the Controller of Defence Accounts (Border Roads), File no.: CIC/CGDAC/A/2022/610238; Date of Decision: 16/03/2023