9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer. (ii) List of all posts of Deputy Secretary, Director, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary above on which, appointments were made under Central Staffing Scheme (CSS) during the Financial Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. (iii) After the panels of suitable officers have been made, what is the procedure for appointing officers at various posts falling vacant at these levels. Which clause of the Central Staffing Scheme deals with the selection of officers from the panels and their final appointment? Please give copies of all Rules, Regulations etc. which guide this process. (iv) Inspection of all files, including file noting, through which the officers were picked up from panels for particular posts during the period from January, 2005 till date. (v) For each of the appointments done at these levels during the Financial Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and till date in the current year, please indicate how the bio-data of appointed officer was considered more suitable than the others for that post. 2. Each of the CPIOs provided a part of information while rest of the information was withheld. Some of the common grounds taken by the CPIOs justifying withholding of information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the PIO to provide complete and correct information immediately. 4. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties passed separate Orders in respect of each of the appeal petitions. The two separate Orders were passed on 3-2-2006 and one Order was passed on 30-3-2006. The Appellate Authority allowed one of the appeals while the remaining two appeals were partly allowed. However, all the cases were remanded to the CPIOs for reconsideration in the light of the observations made by the Appellate Authority. Some of the observations made in respect of each of the appeal petitions may be cited as below : (i) CPIOs have denied some information to the Appellant on the ground that such information is covered under Section 8 of the RTI Act. It is not sufficient simply to quote the section of the Act under which the disclosure of information is exempted. It was obligatory on the part of the CPIOs to indicate under what sub-section and under what specific provisions of Section 8 of the Act the information sought is exempted. It is also necessary for the CPIOs to give reasons how such information falls within the purview of a particular provision of the Act. (ii) The Appellant is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CPIOs, which was a matter of serious concern. (ii) The information sought was voluminous and much of the information sought did not exist in the form in which it was requested. (iii) There was no question of denial of information, as the available information was disclosed by the CPIOs within the stipulated period. (iv) The information denied related to either third party or fell within the category of personal information or concerned matters that were yet to be finally decided upon. (v) There were changes and replacements of CPIOs and appellate authority due to routine transfer and postings, which caused a delay in disposal of the cases. 7. The Commission in its Order dated 14-7-2006 noted the respective submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that the plea of the Respondents was misplaced. He further submitted that he did not want information in any particular format. He may simply be allowed inspection of all files so that he could specify the documents, copies whereof he desired to have. The Respondents submitted that allowing inspection of so many files could disrupt the normal functioning of the DOPT as there would be more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformed the Commission that :- (a) As regards information pertaining to the appointment at the level of Dy. Secretary and Director, he was allowed to inspect the files but was not provided with the copies of the certain documents from the files even after he had requested for the same. The CPIO informed him that providing copies of the documents from the files pertaining to two years would be very time consuming. When the request was reduced to providing copies of the files pertaining to one year that was also refused. The Department was not willing to allow copies of the documents from the files even pertaining to 3 months. This clearly showed that they did not have the intention to provide the information and the refusal was, therefore, mala fide. (b) As regards information relating to the appointment at the level of Joint Secretary, the files were made available for inspection, but copies of the documents, although not formally refused, were not provided either. However, he was told that they would take the same stand as in the case of appointment of Dy. Secretary/Director. (c) As regards information relating to appointment at the level of Additional Secretary/Secretary, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been sent to the Appellant on 3-8-2006. The Appellant has also been requested to inspect the files relating to the appointment at the level of Additional Secretary/Secretary. The CPIO also averred that the directions of the Central Information Commission have, therefore, been complied with in true spirit of the Act. 14. The Commission considered the compliance report from the DoPT and since it was of the view that the Order of the commission have been compiled with and that the relevant information, as permissible under the Act, has already been provided to the Appellant, there is, therefore, no justification for any further action. The Appellant was accordingly informed of this vide letter dated 18-4-2007. 15. The Appellant was not satisfied with this decision of the Commission and preferred an application for review before the Chief Information Commissioner on 20-4-2007 wherein he submitted that he had already filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act some time in November, 2006 seeking directions to the DoPT to provide copies of the documents identified by him and directions to the Cabinet Secretary to allow inspection of all files and allow copies of documents w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation Commissioners, Professor M.M. Ansari, Dr. O.P. Kejariwal and Ms. Padma Balasubramanian was constituted to hear the matter. Notices of hearing were issued and the matter was heard on 19th February, 2008 at 12.30 PM before the Bench so constituted. The following were present : Appellant : 1. Shri Arvind Kejriwal 2. Ms. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar Respondents : 1. Shri A.K. Singhal, Director, DoPT 2. Smt. Trishaljit Sethi, Director DoPT 3. Shri S. Imran Ahmed, Section Officer, DoPT 4. Smt. Vimla Bakshi, Under Secretary, DoPT 5. Shri Nirmal Kumar, Section Officer, DoPT 6. Shri. S.K. Mohanti, Section Officer, DoPT 19. During the hearing on 19-2-2008, Shri Nirmal Kumar, Section Officer CPIO submitted on behalf of the Respondents that copies of the Examination Reports and file notings and correspondence sought by the Appellant includes personal information of the officers which is not only voluminous but also involves information relating to 3rd parties which would be several hundreds since it covers all Ministries, Cadre Controlling Authorities and all State Governments. He submitted that the work relating to contacting and writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not sponsored by the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities of Group A Services in the earlier years. The Appellant was further apprised that the relevant information as to why the remaining officers were not sponsored for empanelment, would be available with the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities. The Appellant was accordingly provided a list of the Services and their Cadre Controlling Authorities. However, so far as the Department of Personnel Training was concerned, the Department itself being the Cadre Controlling Authority in respect of the Indian Administrative Service, information in respect of IAS officers was provided to the Appellant. 22. The Appellant arguing his case submitted that since the files concerning empanelment of Deputy Secretaries, Directors and Joint Secretaries have already been shown to him, therefore, there should be no harm in providing copies of the concerned files as disclosure of such information is in larger public interest. The Appellant also stated that so far as MM-II Section of the DoPT is concerned, they had shown all the documents but not provided copies of the required documents. He also submitted that even though the number of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. The Commission had also gone to the extent of recording that there seemed to be no objection on the part of the DoPT to provide the information. The only issue was how to provide it considering its voluminous nature. In this connection, it must be mentioned that initially the Appellant had wanted the information concerning the appointment of the senior officers for three years which had been subsequently agreed to be kept limited to three months. In regard to the MM-II Section of the DoPT, the Appellant submitted that even though there were the number of files but there were only two general files copies whereof could be made available. In regard to the information concerning the officers at the level of DS/Director/JS, inspection of files had already been done and the only question that now remained was whether photo copies of the concerned files could be given or not. For this, the DoPT had not advanced any reason for not providing photo copies of the concerned files. 24. Therefore, since the right to information includes the right to take notes, extracts and certified copies of the documents or records, the Appellant cannot be prevented from taking copies of the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
