During hearing of show cause notice for alleged delay, PIO stated that he was not holding the charge when the RTI application was filed - he pleaded that there was no delay on his part in furnishing the information - CIC: penalty proceedings dropped
24 May, 2014ORDER
The matter earlier came up for hearing on 03.04.2014 when the Commission issued an order dated 03.04.2014, which is reproduced below:
“The complainant was not present for the hearing whereas the respondent was represented by Shri G. Nayak, Under Secretary.
2. The present complaint dated 9.5.13 filed by the complainant shall be dealt with in accordance with Section 18 of the RTI Act.
3. Complainant, a candidate who has appeared in Grade ‘C’ and Grade ‘D’ skill test for Stenographers Examination, 2012, has filed an RTI application on 24.12.12 wherein he sought the certified copies of his shorthand transcriptions showing mistakes committed by him, passages dictated in the test, total number of candidates who appeared in the test and the number of candidates who qualified the test and the criteria/method adopted by SSC to calculate mistakes in the test. Since, there was no response from the CPIO within thirty days of filing the RTI application, complainant preferred a first appeal under Section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act vide his letter dated 13.3.13.
4. Respondent submitted during the hearing that since the shorthand notes were given to the examiners for checking and were not available with him, therefore the copies of transcripts and shorthand note could not be provided to the complainant within the time limit. He submits that the required information and copy of transcription, shorthand note and passages were sent to the complainant on 10.4.13. Respondent CPIO has failed to reply to the said RTI application within the prescribed statutory time limit and the FAA has also failed to dispose of the first appeal filed by the complainant. Commission directs Shri Satya Prakash, CPIO to show cause as to why the penalty for the delay is not to be imposed on him. Commission would hear the matter again on 1.5.14 at 1130 hrs.”
2. As scheduled the matter was heard on 01.05.2014. The CPIO, Shri Satya Prakash was present. During hearing, he filed his reply to show cause notice before the Commission. In this reply he has stated that at the time of filing of RTI application Shri Gopinath Nayak, Under Secretary was holding the charge of the Confidential 1/ 1 section, and was the concerned CPIO. According to Shri Satya Prakash, he was given charge of Confidential 1/1 branch in the last week of February, 2013. He provided the information to the Complainant vide letter dated 10.04.2013 after receiving the first appeal of the Complainant on 01.04.2013. He has thus pleaded that there was no delay on his part in furnishing the information to the Complainant. While responding to the Complainant’s complaint that he has been given “unchecked and uncertified” copy of transcript, Shri Satya Praksah stated that transcripts are checked on computer, hence no handwritten marking is made on the same. He stated that information given to the Complainant is authentic and factual.
3. In view of the above, the Commission drops the showcause proceeding against the CPIO, Shri Satya Prakash
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Anil v. Staff Selection Commission in Case No. CIC/SM/C/2013/000453