Can the appeal against awarding compulsory retirement punishment be reconsidered? - PIO: request beyond the definition of ‘information’ - CIC: apprise the rule position as per CCS (Conduct) Rules and CCS (CC&A) Rules regarding the reconsideration

Can the appeal against awarding compulsory retirement punishment be reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority - PIO: request does not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act - CIC: PIO should apprise the appellant about the rule position as per CCS (Conduct) Rules and CCS (CC&A) Rules regarding the reconsideration of appeal by the Disciplinary Authority

ORDER

1. The appellant through his RTI application dated 20.9.2012 sought information in respect of disciplinary action initiated against him. The CPIO vide 17/39/2009-Estt-II dated 23.10.2012 informed the appellant that he has sought reasons for awarding compulsory retirement punishment, which did not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘information’ as defined under the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority had upheld the punishment awarded to the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority and there is no provision for reconsideration of the punishment awarded to him.

2. However, aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 24.11.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. 17/39/2009-Estt.II dated 18.1.2013 held that the penalty was imposed by CWPRS. As regards, his appeal against the penalty of compulsory retirement, the Appellate Authority had given his order to uphold the penalty, after considering the entire case including the final findings in the enquiry report. As regards reconsideration of the penalty of compulsory retirement, there is no such provision under the RTI Act.

3. During the respondent state that as per RTI Act, the Public Authority is to provide the information which is held by it. It is not supposed to review the cases or initiate fresh enquiries as requested by the appellant in his application. The CPIO further states that Hon’ble CAT, Mumbai Bench on 5.9.2012 has already dismissed the OA No. 572/2009 filed by the appellant on the same issue.

4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the information as sought for by the appellant at Point No. 1 of his RTI application the appellant sought reasons for awarding compulsory retirement which does not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. However, at Point No. 2 whether his appeal can be reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant is entitled to have categorical reply. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to apprise the appellant about the rule position as per CCS (Conduct) Rules and CCS (CC&A) Rules. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order. The matter is accordingly disposed of on the part of the Commission.

(Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Sunil Chandrakant Sonawane v. Ministry of Water Resources in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000538