Information in relation to the complaint by Rajeev Sharma against Secretary, CIC was sought - CIC found that there is no procedure for maintaining records of complaints addressed to the Commissioners by name - PIO cautioned to exercise due care

Information sought:

The appellant had sought information in relation to his complaint dated 31.10.2012, against Secretary, Central Information Commission.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Since, the subject matter of the above mentioned appeals are same, therefore, all the 3 appeals are clubbed and heard together. Both the parties are present. The appellant stated that information sought has not been provided to him, even after the order of the FAA. The appellant further stated that PIO in his reply dated 11.09.2014 stated that his complaint was shown to the former CIC(SM) at dak stage and thereafter it was not received back by the registry, thus, no information is available. The respondent, Shri Vijay Bhalla, stated that since, the complaint was addressed in the name of CIC(SM), that is why it was showed to him through his PPS and no more information is available with him in this regard. The appellant stated that in reply to his another RTI application, CPIO, RTI Cell vide reply dated 25.08.2014, had asked him to deposit Rs. 20/- for providing the same information and thereby deliberately denied the supply of information. Shri Vijay Bhalla, requested 10 days time to submit submission so that full facts are brought on record.

Interim Decision:

The Commission directs Shri Vijay Bhalla, Dy. Registrar & CPIO, to submit written submission clearly answering the issues raised by the appellant, within 10 days of the receipt of this order.

Decision:

Shri Vijay Bhalla, Dy. Registrar through his submission dated 15.05.2015 submitted as follows:

“The appeals relating to the Public Authority Central Information Commission were originally allotted to the Registry of Chief IC Shri Satyananda Mishra. Thereafter, this Public Authority i.e., Central Information Commission was transferred to IC Shri Sailesh Gandhi. Accordingly, all the pending appeals including that of Shri Rajeev Sharma were transferred to the Registry of IC(SG) the appeal of Shri Rajeev Sharma was heard and disposed of by Shri Sailesh Gandhi. An order was passed by him imposing penalty on the CPIO, Shri K.L.Das. Thereafter, this Public Authority i.e., Central Information Commission was transferred to the Registry of Shri M.L.Sharma Information Commissioner, who had passed certain orders in the file relating to the appeal of Shri Rajeev Sharma. It is understood that Shri Rajiv Sharma had send a representation against the orders passed by Shri M.L.Sharma to the then Chief Information Commissioner Shri Satyananda Mishra. The representation was received by the personal staff of Shri Satyananda Mishra as it was addressed to him by name. It was shown to him as informed by one of the members of the erst-while personal staff of the ex-Chief IC. The undersigned has no knowledge about the final disposal of that representation. Even the file pertaining to the second appeal of Shri Rajeev Sharma was never handled by the undersigned from the time it was transferred to the Registry of IC(SG). Therefore, the undersigned had no information to provide at all regarding this case.

As regards the providing of copies of certain documents along with a copy of his representation, it is stated that incidentally the erst-while staff had stored a scanned copy of the same in one of their PCs as per the practice prevailing at that time. A copy of these documents was retrieved from that computer and passed on the nodal CPO for providing it to the appellant.”

After perusal of the record, the Commission finds that there is no procedure for maintaining records of complaints addressed to the Commissioners by name. The information as available on record has already been provided to the appellant. Shri Vijay Bhalla, the CPIO is cautioned to exercise due care in ensuring that directions of the Commission are complied within time, failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 may be initiated in future. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Rajeev Sharma v. Central Information Commission in F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001900-YA, CIC/YA/A/2014/000182-YA and CIC/YA/A/2014/001029-YA