Information about enquiry - CIC: Spirit of Section 6(3) is to transfer the RTI application within the public authority; Every public authority has its own CPIO and the information seeker should file his RTI application to the appropriate public authority
9 Jun, 2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.06.2022 seeking the following information:
“With reference to the File No 3/99/2017-S.I dated 6/10/2017, l wish to seek the following information.
a) Details of the departmental employees (IRLA/force No., Name, Office/unit) who had deposed in the Departmental Enquiry as mentioned in above in the above cited Penalty Order
b) Details of the departmental material evidence as produced in the Departmental Enquiry in above cited Penalty Order.
c) Details of the custodians of such material evidence as produced in the Departmental Enquiry in above cited Penalty Order.”
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 08.07.2022 stating as under:
“Reply of point (a) to (c): It is informed that all case records so received from the Ministry of Home Affairs have been returned to the Ministry of Home Affairs alongwith the UPSC’s advice dated 06.10.2017. Further, the Ministry of Home Affairs is the legitimate custodian of these documents. Hence, any further request for these documents may be submitted before the Ministry of Home Affairs only.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.08.2022. FAA’s order, if any, dated 31.08.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri Ajay Gairola, Dy. Secretary present through Intra VideoConference.
The written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
The Appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the CPIO on his RTI application dated 20.06.2022. He requested the Commission that complete and correct information should be provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that vide their letter dated 08.07.2022 they have categorically informed the Appellant that:
In reply a to c:-It is informed that all the case records so received from the Ministry of Home Affairs have been returned to the Ministry of Home Affairs alongwith the UPSC’s advice dated 06.10.2017. Further, the Ministry of Home Affairs is the legitimate custodian of these documents. Hence, any further request for these documents may be submitted before the Ministry of Home Affairs only.
The CPIO further submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-receipt of desired information. In response to which, the CPIO clarified the factual position as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
The spirit of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act is to transfer the RTI application of the applicant within the public authority. Every public authority has its own CPIO and the information seeker should file his RTI application to the appropriate public authority.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Hence, no intervention of the Commission at this stage is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sandeep Yadav v. Union Public Service Commission, CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/145316; Date of Decision: 18.05.2023