Respondent remained absent despite service of notice - CIC: Absence of the respondent is viewed seriously by the Commission and the PIO is cautioned to be careful in future - CIC directed to provide revised point-wise reply against point Nos. 6 to 8

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.01.2023 seeking the following information:

1) “Provide the information if any staff member of your office is admitted in any Govt. Hospital which is away from his/her Hometown as well as Office under Emergency condition and the same is duly certified by that Govt. Hospital, how he/she will take station leave permission on the unforeseen cases or else there is provision of exemption in this regard. Provide the Govt. Order in this regard.

2) Provide the information whether in your sparrow system, if any staff accepts his/her APAR, how he/she can represent against the said APAR in the sparrow system. Is there any lacuna in your sparrow system or else.

3) Provide the information with the Govt. Order on APAR (not for ACR which was abolished before 2010) to represent against his/her APAR even after acceptance of the said APAR.

4) Provide the information under the following situation in your office / sub offices all over India individually/ separately as of now how many of your staff members posted in different stations and they are daily travelling from outside their duty stations and had ever been remained sick in their hometown on any working day/ days and remained without station leave permission? What are the actions taken by your office / sub offices if any in the above situation? Provide the Govt. order in this regard.

5) Provide the information with Govt. Order exists where if any staff member/s who regularly attends office away from his/her duty station and remained sick on any day on which date office remains open for duty and the individual staff member remained sick in his/her hometown that is away from their duty station and remained without station leave permission for the day/s of sickness. Whether it attracts any misconduct under CCS rule or not? Is there any exception on the above situation/s for seeking station leave permission in those unforeseen medical fit/unfit cases (provide the Authority)?

6) Provide the information whether the Ministry of Finance/Dept. of Expenditure Office Memorandum's on special pay vide no./s: F. no. 03-26/2020-E.III(A) dated 29th June 2022, No. 11-1/2016/7th CPC/Part. II (B) dated 14^th Nov., 2019 and your circular on pay fixation after grant of special pay vide No. AN/XIV/14162/6th CPC/Circular Vol_XIX dated: 10/11/2014 are strictly followed in your office as well as in all of your sub offices or not. If not so, provide the reason behind it.

7) Provide the information that FR22(1)(a)(1) since 1922 till last amendment F.No. 13/1/2017-Estt. (Pay-I) 19th November 2018 are strictly followed in your office and all of your sub offices or not during the period 2014 to 2022. If not, then provide the reason/s behind it with authority / Govt. Order/s specifically exists therein.

8) Provide the information about the practice in your office and under your sub offices if a staff is promoted or upgraded from pay level 6 to pay level 7 or from pay level 7 to pay level 8 under 7th CPC though the levels have same pay in all the three levels are getting one additional increment on the said promotion / up gradation or not. If additional increment is allowed / disallowed state, the reasons specifically behind it with supporting Govt. orders in this regard. If any discrimination is being followed specify the reason with specific Govt. order.

9) Provide the information if any staff member/s represents against his/her APAR after 15 days showing reason that he/she was admitted in a Govt. Hospital under Emergency within 15 days period and was advised by the Doctor to take mental rest too and after the rest period if the staff represent against the adverse APAR, can the representation be accepted or not. Provide the Govt. order in this regard.

10) Provide the information if any staff member's represents against his/her APAR after 15 days showing reason that due to the COVID-19 pandemic 50% roaster duty started from January 2021 and so till the end of roaster duty he/she asks for exemption on representation of the roaster period from 15 days of specified representation days and if the staff represent against the adverse APAR then, can the representation be accepted or not. Provide the Govt. order in this regard.

11) Provide the information if any staff transfers on state cost and released on 30th Dec. and joined 31st Dec. in the same year having 300 EL balance and wishes to take entitled joining time in Feb. next year having EL balance 300+15 while moving his family to the duty stn.. How the joining Time will be considered to avail.”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 10.02.2023 stating as under:

“Para 1 -DO not pertain to this CPIO. Reply may be awaited from concerned CPIO (AN-XIV)

Para 2 It is intimated that once the official reported upon accepts final grading given in his/her APAR, there is no option to represent against the same APAR. If the official wants to represent, choose for representation instead of accepting at that stage itself. No lacuna found by this CPIO in the SPARROW system in this regard.

Para 3- No specific guidelines regarding consideration of Representation on APAR (after abolition of ACR & introduction of APAR) available with this CPIO.

The request is being transferred to the concerned CPIO of Dept. of Personnel & Training, Min. of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

Para 4 Do not pertain to this CPIO. Reply may be awaited from CPIΟ (AN-III) (Local) and also being transferred to CPIO (AN-IV) (Local).

Para 5 The information sought is based on a hypothetical situation and also do not pertain to this CPIO. Reply may be awaited from CPIO (AN-XIV) (Local).

Para 6 to 8- Do not pertain to this CPIO and reply may be awaited from CPIO (AN-XIV) (Local).

Para 9 The information sought is based on a hypothetical situation. However, the same is being transferred to the CPIO of Dept. of Personnel & Training, Min. of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

Para 10 The information sought is based on a hypothetical situation. However, it is stated that the competent authority may use his discretion power and either condone the delay or reject.

Para 11 Do not pertain to this CPIO. Reply may be awaited from CPIO (AN-XIV) (Local).”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 24.03.2023, held as under:-

“And whereas, the undersigned, being the Appellate Authority, having examined the issues raised in the appeal dated 27.02.2023, has observed that the CPIO/AO (AN-XIV) of CGDA office has handled the RTI application dated 30.01.2023 with due diligence and furnished suitable replies to the points relevant to AN-XIV section under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The undersigned finds that the said replies are in order.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: appellant’s representative Shri Joydip Lahiri, appeared through video conference.

Respondent: Absent

The appellant’s representative inter alia submitted that the appellant has received a reply from the respondent wherein reply given by the respondent on point Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application is not satisfactory. Therefore, he requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information on point Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application free of cost.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the representative of the appellant and perusal of the records, notes that the respondent has provided point-wise reply to the RTI application vide letter dated 10.02.2023. The FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply vide order dated 24.03.2023. The appellant during the hearing pressed on point Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application only. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the information sought on point No. 1 of the RTI application is in the form of query which did not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. As regards point Nos. 6 to 8 of the RTI application, the respondent has informed that replies were awaited from the concerned CPIO/Office/Department. Thereafter, no reply was given by respondent on these points as per the records available before the Commission.

The respondent remained absent despite service of notice and in his/her absence it could not be ascertained as to whether any further reply was given to the appellant on point Nos. 6 to 8 of the RTI application. Absence of the respondent is viewed seriously by the Commission and the CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future.

Further, the respondent is directed to provide revised point-wise reply/information against point Nos. 6 to 8 of the RTI application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks’ time from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent is free to invoke section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, to obtain information from the concerned office/department and provide the same to the appellant.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mina Lahiri v. Controller General of defence Accounts, CIC/CGDAC/A/2023/118772; Date of Decision : 18-03-2024