A Good Decision by CIC (CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION) to make available copy of ACRs, Dispatche details/ Receiving Details etc.
See decision link : http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_000494_M_67501.pdf
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
D- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
(Through Video Conferencing)
Appellant : Smt. Neera Malhotra
Respondent : Assistant Director General of Shipping, Government of
India, Ministry of Shipping, Directorate General of
Shipping, Mumbai
Date of Decision : 27.09.2011
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
1. The present hearing was scheduled before the Commission on 07/07/2011 at
1145 hours and was heard via Video Conferencing. The Appellant, Smt.
Neera Malhotra was present in person at the NIC Centre, Pune and the
Respondent represented by Shri Deepak Shetty, Joint Director & FAA,
Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai and Shri S.G. Bhandare, the
1
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
Assistant DG of Shipping & CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping,
Mumbai were present at the NIC Centre, Mumbai.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The Appellant vide her RTI
Application dated 29/02/2010 had sought information in respect of her
Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period April 2005 to December
2005. We shall address each Question of the RTI Application at length later
in this decision notice but for the time being, it is sufficient to state that Shri
S.G. Bhandare, the Assistant DG of Shipping & CPIO, Directorate General
of Shipping, Mumbai disposed off the Appellant’s RTI Application vide his
Order dated 23/03/2010. Vide the same Order of the CPIO, only a copy of
communication DO.No.DG/5/06 dated 5/9.04.2006 addressed to Shri H.
Tulsyan, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai forwarding the
Appellant’s ACR was provided to the Appellant. Information on other points
was not provided.
3. On 02/04/2010, aggrieved by the CPIO’s reply, the Appellant preferred first
appeal to Dr. S.B. Agnihotri, the Joint Director General of Shipping & FAA,
Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai. The FAA vide its Order dated
07/01/2011inter alia observed that the CPIO had sent some additional
information with regard to the Appellant’s RTI Application to her on
2
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
16/04/2010. Thereafter, with further observations as will be discussed later,
the FAA disposed off the first appeal of the Appellant
4. The Appellant has now come before the Commission in second appeal dated
09/03/2011.
DECISION NOTICE:
5. We have carefully perused through the material placed on record before us
by both the parties and have considered the respective submissions made by
them before us. The Appellant, Smt. Neera Malhotra has vehemently argued
her case with full force and has presented her written submissions in a most
lucid manner. Mr. Shetty, representing the Respondent, has also furnished
written comments for assisting this Commission in this second appeal.
6. We shall now proceed to analyze each Question of the RTI Application of
the Appellant as well as the replies tendered by the CPIO and FAA of the
Respondent, respectively and thereafter, pronounce our decision
accordingly.
· Question Nos. 1 and 2 of Part I of the RTI
Application:
3
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
“1.) Please provide a copy of the directions issued by Deputy
DG of Shipping (Personnel Branch / Vigilance) on behalf of
Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping, to submit the ACR for
the period April 2005 to December 2005.
2.) On which date was my ACR for the period April 2005 to
December 2005 received by the office of Shri G.S. Sahni, the
then DG of Shipping? Please provide me a photocopy of the
extract for the inward register in the O/o. DG of Shipping in
proof of the same.”
The Appellant has agreed in her second appeal preferred to the Commission
that the information in relation to the above two Questions has already been
furnished to her by the CPIO vide letter dated 16/04/2010, i.e. after the first
appeal was already preferred by the Appellant. Thus, the only grievance of
the Appellant is the inordinate delay of 1 month and 18 days caused in
providing information to the Appellant.
4
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
7. In the Commission’s opinion, a bare perusal of the reply tendered by the
CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai vide his Order dated
23/03/2010 shows that it does not pertain to the specific information being
sought under the abovementioned 2 (two) Queries. There is merit in the
Appellant’s contention to the extent that neither did the CPIO deny the
information sought by the Appellant by seeking exemption under relevant
provision of the RTI Act nor did he make serious efforts to provide the
information to the Appellant. In fact, what could be furnished to the
Appellant within 30 days of having filed her RTI Application was provided
to her 17 days after the expiry of the said 30 days period as mandated under
Section 7 of the RTI Act. Merely tendering a reply, irrespective of its
relevance to the RTI Application, is not what the RTI Act mandates a CPIO
of a Public Authority.
8. Thus, the CPIO is hereby cautioned from furnishing such kind of vague
replies (as in the present case) with respect to the RTI Applications in the
future and to ensure that it acts in conformity with the letter of the RTI Act.
9. The overall tenor of the following Questions covered in Part I and II of the
RTI Application, respectively (as stated below) is similar in nature and has
5
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
been dealt together by the FAA also. The Commission shall therefore deal
with and adjudicate upon all these Questions through a common decision.
· Question Nos.3, 4 and 5 of Part I of the RTI
Application
“3.) On which date did the office of Shri D.G. Sahni, the then
DG of Shipping reported on my ACR? The date of reporting by
Shri G.S. Sahni may kindly be provided. A copy of the Order
sheet of the relevant file in which my ACR was submitted to Mr.
Sahni for reporting may kindly be provided.
4.) On which date was my ACR for the period April 2005 to
December 2005 dispatched for review to Shri D.T. Joseph, the
then Secretary (Shipping), Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi by
the office of Mr. G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping? A copy
of the covering letter along with the date of dispatch and date
of postal authority receiving the letter may kindly be provided.
Also, the extract of the dispatch register in support of dispatch
6
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
of the letter and speed post acknowledgment of dispatch may
kindly be provided.
5.) A copy of the order sheet of the relevant file in which the
letter addressed to Secretary (Shipping), New Delhi enclosing
my ACR was noted may kindly be provided.”
AND
· Question Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Part II of the RTI
Application
“2.) Please provide complete details of all officers who
submitted the ACRs for the period April 2005 to December
2005 along with names and designation and dates on which the
officers wrote their ACRs to Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of
Shipping, as the reporting officer?
3.) On which date did the office of Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG
of Shipping, receive the ACRs from all officers for the period
April 2005 to December 2005? Please provide complete details
of all officers individually along with names and designation
7
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
and the date on which their ACRs were received by the office of
Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping.
4.) On which date did Mr. G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping,
reported on the ACRs of all officers for the period April 2005 to
December 2005? The date of reporting by Shri G.S. Sahni may
kindly be provided individually in respect of all the officers
along with names and designation.
5.) On which date were the ACRs of all the officers in the
Directorate General of Shipping for the period April 2005 to
December 2005 dispatched to the Secretary (Shipping),
Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi by the office of Mr. Sahni, the
then DG of Shipping for review by Shri D.T. Joseph, the then
Secretary (Shipping), Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi? A copy
of the covering letter(s) vide which these ACRs were sent may
kindly be provided.
6.) The date of dispatch and the date of postal authority
receiving the letter(s) vide which the ACRs of all the officers of
the Directorate may kindly be provided in respect of all officers
individually along with the name and designation. Also, the
8
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
Also, the extract of the dispatch register and speed post
acknowledgment of dispatch in respect of all officers along
with the names and designation may kindly be provided.”
The FAA, vide his Order dated 07/01/2011 had provided the details in a
tabular form of 9 (nine) officers of the Directorate General of Shipping,
including the Appellant Smt. Neera Malhotra, who had written their ACRs
for the period of April 2005 to December 2005 the date of reporting by Shri
G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping as the Reporting Officer. The table of
information contained 5 (five) columns headed as Name, Designation, Date
of ACR written, Date of Reporting by DG and Date of dispatch to Secretary
(MOS), respectively.
10.It is interesting to note that with regards to Smt. Neera Malhotra, the
Appellant herein, the details of Date of ACR written, Date of Reporting by
DG and Date of dispatch to Secretary (MOS), respectively were left Blank
and had the following disclaimer:
“Copies of ACRs are not available with Vigilance branch as
observed from the copies of letters addressed to their respective
parent department along with ACR vide DG’s letter
9
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
No.DG/5/06 dated 5/19.4.2006 in respect of (1) Ms. Neera
Malhotra, former Deputy Director General of Shipping to her
parent Department, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai, (2) Shri P.H. Krishnan […] and (3) ACR of Shri
Naresh Salecha […]. Hence the dates could not be provided
(copies enclosed)”
11. The FAA further held under Point No.5 of his Order dated 07/01/2011 that
the ACR of the Appellant for April 2005 to December 2005 was not
received in the vigilance branch and the original was sent to her parent
department directly by the DG’s Secretariat under the signature of the DG of
Shipping.
12. It is apposite at this juncture to refer to letter No.F-20014/1/10-MA dated
14/05/2010 sent by Smt. Jacinta Jose, Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India &
CPIO, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi to the Appellant herein in respect of
one of her RTI Applications. The Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India &
CPIO, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi stated that as per the available
records, the Appellant’s ACR for the period April 2005 to December 2005
had not been received from DG Shipping. The letter further stated that only
the ACR of Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping for the period
10
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
01/04/2005 to 31/12/2005 was submitted by him to then Secretary
(Shipping), Shri D.T. Joseph being Reporting Officer and the same was
forwarded to the Establishment officer, DoPT.
13. The above letter placed on record before the Commission clearly shows the
anomaly between the FAA’s Order and the situation in real. However, the
Commission is concerned with the RTI Application only and need not depart
from the boundaries established by the RTI Act. Mr. Shetty, Joint Director
& FAA, Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai, representing the
Respondent before the Commission during the hearing of this second appeal,
has conceded that the incoherence as highlighted above is justified in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. Shetty has therefore agreed
before the Commission to furnish information afresh to the Appellant along
with reasons thereof with respect to the Questions of the RTI Application as
dealt with above.
14. The Commission therefore directs the FAA of the Respondent to pass a
Fresh Order, within 15 days of receiving this Order, with respect to the
Appellant’s RTI Application dated 29/02/2010 and thereby, furnish to the
Appellant a complete and accurate list of all the officers of the Directorate,
including the Appellant Smt. Neera Malhotra herself, in a similar tabular
11
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
format as earlier indicating their Name, Designation, Date of ACR written,
Date of Reporting by DG and Date of dispatch to Secretary (MOS),
respectively, who has submitted their ACRs to the then DG of Shipping for
the period April 2005 to December 2005. A copy of the Order sheets,
acknowledgment receipts, and relevant portions of the dispatch registers etc.
as sought by the Appellant vide Question Nos.3, 4 and 5 (Part I of RTI
Application) and Question Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Part II of the RTI
Application) shall also be provided to the Appellant within 15 days of
receiving this Order.
15. The FAA is further directed to provide reasons while passing its fresh Order
in disposing off the Appellant’s RTI Application dated 29/02/2010 with
respect to Question Nos.3, 4 and 5 (Part I of RTI Application) and Question
Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Part II of the RTI Application).
16.We finally proceed to deal with Question No.1 of Part II of the Appellant’s
RTI Application.
12
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
· Question No.1 of Part II of the RTI Application
“1.) Did Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping call for
ACRs from all the officers who worked in the Directorate
General of Shipping during the period April 2005 to December
2005 in his capacity as the Reporting Officer? A copy of
directions issued to all officers may kindly be provided.”
In the Commission’s opinion, the above query has not been answered till
date by the Respondent. The letter dated 16/04/2010 issued by the CPIO of
the Respondent to the Appellant contained a Circular of the Directorate
General of Shipping (No.VIG-1(1)/2006) dated 09/12/2005 which was
issued to all the officers of the Directorate, all the allied officers of the
Directorate and to the Sr. PS to DG. The Circular stated that Shri D.T.
Joseph, the then Secretary (Shipping) was retiring on 31/12/2005 and as
such he desired that the ACRs be reported / reviewed by him and be
submitted to him by 20/12/2005. The circular was signed by Shri P.H.
Krishnan, the Dy. Director General Shipping, DG of Shipping, Mumbai.
13
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
17. It still cannot be inferred from the contents of the above circular as to
whether Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping call for ACRs from all the
officers of the Directorate in his capacity as the Reporting Officer.
18. The Commission therefore directs the FAA to provide the Appellant herein,
with a specific and succinct reply with respect to the Question dealt with
above within 15 days of receiving this Order.
19. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
27.09.2011
Authenticated True Copies
(K.K. Sharma)
OSD & Deputy Registrar
14
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
Name & Address of Parties
Ms./Mrs. Neera Malhotra,
Flat No. 10, Tirath Kunj,
Income Tax Colony 16, Queens Garden,
Pune – 411 001
The PIO/CPIO,
Minsitry of Shipping,
Directorate General of Shipping,
Jahaz Bhavan, W.H. Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001
The Appellate Authority,
Minsitry of Shipping,
Directorate General of Shipping,
Jahaz Bhavan, W.H. Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001
15
See decision link : http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_000494_M_67501.pdf
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
D- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
(Through Video Conferencing)
Appellant : Smt. Neera Malhotra
Respondent : Assistant Director General of Shipping, Government of
India, Ministry of Shipping, Directorate General of
Shipping, Mumbai
Date of Decision : 27.09.2011
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
1. The present hearing was scheduled before the Commission on 07/07/2011 at
1145 hours and was heard via Video Conferencing. The Appellant, Smt.
Neera Malhotra was present in person at the NIC Centre, Pune and the
Respondent represented by Shri Deepak Shetty, Joint Director & FAA,
Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai and Shri S.G. Bhandare, the
1
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
Assistant DG of Shipping & CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping,
Mumbai were present at the NIC Centre, Mumbai.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The Appellant vide her RTI
Application dated 29/02/2010 had sought information in respect of her
Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period April 2005 to December
2005. We shall address each Question of the RTI Application at length later
in this decision notice but for the time being, it is sufficient to state that Shri
S.G. Bhandare, the Assistant DG of Shipping & CPIO, Directorate General
of Shipping, Mumbai disposed off the Appellant’s RTI Application vide his
Order dated 23/03/2010. Vide the same Order of the CPIO, only a copy of
communication DO.No.DG/5/06 dated 5/9.04.2006 addressed to Shri H.
Tulsyan, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai forwarding the
Appellant’s ACR was provided to the Appellant. Information on other points
was not provided.
3. On 02/04/2010, aggrieved by the CPIO’s reply, the Appellant preferred first
appeal to Dr. S.B. Agnihotri, the Joint Director General of Shipping & FAA,
Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai. The FAA vide its Order dated
07/01/2011inter alia observed that the CPIO had sent some additional
information with regard to the Appellant’s RTI Application to her on
2
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
16/04/2010. Thereafter, with further observations as will be discussed later,
the FAA disposed off the first appeal of the Appellant
4. The Appellant has now come before the Commission in second appeal dated
09/03/2011.
DECISION NOTICE:
5. We have carefully perused through the material placed on record before us
by both the parties and have considered the respective submissions made by
them before us. The Appellant, Smt. Neera Malhotra has vehemently argued
her case with full force and has presented her written submissions in a most
lucid manner. Mr. Shetty, representing the Respondent, has also furnished
written comments for assisting this Commission in this second appeal.
6. We shall now proceed to analyze each Question of the RTI Application of
the Appellant as well as the replies tendered by the CPIO and FAA of the
Respondent, respectively and thereafter, pronounce our decision
accordingly.
· Question Nos. 1 and 2 of Part I of the RTI
Application:
3
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
“1.) Please provide a copy of the directions issued by Deputy
DG of Shipping (Personnel Branch / Vigilance) on behalf of
Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping, to submit the ACR for
the period April 2005 to December 2005.
2.) On which date was my ACR for the period April 2005 to
December 2005 received by the office of Shri G.S. Sahni, the
then DG of Shipping? Please provide me a photocopy of the
extract for the inward register in the O/o. DG of Shipping in
proof of the same.”
The Appellant has agreed in her second appeal preferred to the Commission
that the information in relation to the above two Questions has already been
furnished to her by the CPIO vide letter dated 16/04/2010, i.e. after the first
appeal was already preferred by the Appellant. Thus, the only grievance of
the Appellant is the inordinate delay of 1 month and 18 days caused in
providing information to the Appellant.
4
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
7. In the Commission’s opinion, a bare perusal of the reply tendered by the
CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai vide his Order dated
23/03/2010 shows that it does not pertain to the specific information being
sought under the abovementioned 2 (two) Queries. There is merit in the
Appellant’s contention to the extent that neither did the CPIO deny the
information sought by the Appellant by seeking exemption under relevant
provision of the RTI Act nor did he make serious efforts to provide the
information to the Appellant. In fact, what could be furnished to the
Appellant within 30 days of having filed her RTI Application was provided
to her 17 days after the expiry of the said 30 days period as mandated under
Section 7 of the RTI Act. Merely tendering a reply, irrespective of its
relevance to the RTI Application, is not what the RTI Act mandates a CPIO
of a Public Authority.
8. Thus, the CPIO is hereby cautioned from furnishing such kind of vague
replies (as in the present case) with respect to the RTI Applications in the
future and to ensure that it acts in conformity with the letter of the RTI Act.
9. The overall tenor of the following Questions covered in Part I and II of the
RTI Application, respectively (as stated below) is similar in nature and has
5
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
been dealt together by the FAA also. The Commission shall therefore deal
with and adjudicate upon all these Questions through a common decision.
· Question Nos.3, 4 and 5 of Part I of the RTI
Application
“3.) On which date did the office of Shri D.G. Sahni, the then
DG of Shipping reported on my ACR? The date of reporting by
Shri G.S. Sahni may kindly be provided. A copy of the Order
sheet of the relevant file in which my ACR was submitted to Mr.
Sahni for reporting may kindly be provided.
4.) On which date was my ACR for the period April 2005 to
December 2005 dispatched for review to Shri D.T. Joseph, the
then Secretary (Shipping), Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi by
the office of Mr. G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping? A copy
of the covering letter along with the date of dispatch and date
of postal authority receiving the letter may kindly be provided.
Also, the extract of the dispatch register in support of dispatch
6
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
of the letter and speed post acknowledgment of dispatch may
kindly be provided.
5.) A copy of the order sheet of the relevant file in which the
letter addressed to Secretary (Shipping), New Delhi enclosing
my ACR was noted may kindly be provided.”
AND
· Question Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Part II of the RTI
Application
“2.) Please provide complete details of all officers who
submitted the ACRs for the period April 2005 to December
2005 along with names and designation and dates on which the
officers wrote their ACRs to Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of
Shipping, as the reporting officer?
3.) On which date did the office of Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG
of Shipping, receive the ACRs from all officers for the period
April 2005 to December 2005? Please provide complete details
of all officers individually along with names and designation
7
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
and the date on which their ACRs were received by the office of
Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping.
4.) On which date did Mr. G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping,
reported on the ACRs of all officers for the period April 2005 to
December 2005? The date of reporting by Shri G.S. Sahni may
kindly be provided individually in respect of all the officers
along with names and designation.
5.) On which date were the ACRs of all the officers in the
Directorate General of Shipping for the period April 2005 to
December 2005 dispatched to the Secretary (Shipping),
Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi by the office of Mr. Sahni, the
then DG of Shipping for review by Shri D.T. Joseph, the then
Secretary (Shipping), Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi? A copy
of the covering letter(s) vide which these ACRs were sent may
kindly be provided.
6.) The date of dispatch and the date of postal authority
receiving the letter(s) vide which the ACRs of all the officers of
the Directorate may kindly be provided in respect of all officers
individually along with the name and designation. Also, the
8
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
Also, the extract of the dispatch register and speed post
acknowledgment of dispatch in respect of all officers along
with the names and designation may kindly be provided.”
The FAA, vide his Order dated 07/01/2011 had provided the details in a
tabular form of 9 (nine) officers of the Directorate General of Shipping,
including the Appellant Smt. Neera Malhotra, who had written their ACRs
for the period of April 2005 to December 2005 the date of reporting by Shri
G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping as the Reporting Officer. The table of
information contained 5 (five) columns headed as Name, Designation, Date
of ACR written, Date of Reporting by DG and Date of dispatch to Secretary
(MOS), respectively.
10.It is interesting to note that with regards to Smt. Neera Malhotra, the
Appellant herein, the details of Date of ACR written, Date of Reporting by
DG and Date of dispatch to Secretary (MOS), respectively were left Blank
and had the following disclaimer:
“Copies of ACRs are not available with Vigilance branch as
observed from the copies of letters addressed to their respective
parent department along with ACR vide DG’s letter
9
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
No.DG/5/06 dated 5/19.4.2006 in respect of (1) Ms. Neera
Malhotra, former Deputy Director General of Shipping to her
parent Department, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai, (2) Shri P.H. Krishnan […] and (3) ACR of Shri
Naresh Salecha […]. Hence the dates could not be provided
(copies enclosed)”
11. The FAA further held under Point No.5 of his Order dated 07/01/2011 that
the ACR of the Appellant for April 2005 to December 2005 was not
received in the vigilance branch and the original was sent to her parent
department directly by the DG’s Secretariat under the signature of the DG of
Shipping.
12. It is apposite at this juncture to refer to letter No.F-20014/1/10-MA dated
14/05/2010 sent by Smt. Jacinta Jose, Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India &
CPIO, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi to the Appellant herein in respect of
one of her RTI Applications. The Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India &
CPIO, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi stated that as per the available
records, the Appellant’s ACR for the period April 2005 to December 2005
had not been received from DG Shipping. The letter further stated that only
the ACR of Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping for the period
10
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
01/04/2005 to 31/12/2005 was submitted by him to then Secretary
(Shipping), Shri D.T. Joseph being Reporting Officer and the same was
forwarded to the Establishment officer, DoPT.
13. The above letter placed on record before the Commission clearly shows the
anomaly between the FAA’s Order and the situation in real. However, the
Commission is concerned with the RTI Application only and need not depart
from the boundaries established by the RTI Act. Mr. Shetty, Joint Director
& FAA, Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai, representing the
Respondent before the Commission during the hearing of this second appeal,
has conceded that the incoherence as highlighted above is justified in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. Shetty has therefore agreed
before the Commission to furnish information afresh to the Appellant along
with reasons thereof with respect to the Questions of the RTI Application as
dealt with above.
14. The Commission therefore directs the FAA of the Respondent to pass a
Fresh Order, within 15 days of receiving this Order, with respect to the
Appellant’s RTI Application dated 29/02/2010 and thereby, furnish to the
Appellant a complete and accurate list of all the officers of the Directorate,
including the Appellant Smt. Neera Malhotra herself, in a similar tabular
11
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
format as earlier indicating their Name, Designation, Date of ACR written,
Date of Reporting by DG and Date of dispatch to Secretary (MOS),
respectively, who has submitted their ACRs to the then DG of Shipping for
the period April 2005 to December 2005. A copy of the Order sheets,
acknowledgment receipts, and relevant portions of the dispatch registers etc.
as sought by the Appellant vide Question Nos.3, 4 and 5 (Part I of RTI
Application) and Question Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Part II of the RTI
Application) shall also be provided to the Appellant within 15 days of
receiving this Order.
15. The FAA is further directed to provide reasons while passing its fresh Order
in disposing off the Appellant’s RTI Application dated 29/02/2010 with
respect to Question Nos.3, 4 and 5 (Part I of RTI Application) and Question
Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Part II of the RTI Application).
16.We finally proceed to deal with Question No.1 of Part II of the Appellant’s
RTI Application.
12
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
· Question No.1 of Part II of the RTI Application
“1.) Did Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping call for
ACRs from all the officers who worked in the Directorate
General of Shipping during the period April 2005 to December
2005 in his capacity as the Reporting Officer? A copy of
directions issued to all officers may kindly be provided.”
In the Commission’s opinion, the above query has not been answered till
date by the Respondent. The letter dated 16/04/2010 issued by the CPIO of
the Respondent to the Appellant contained a Circular of the Directorate
General of Shipping (No.VIG-1(1)/2006) dated 09/12/2005 which was
issued to all the officers of the Directorate, all the allied officers of the
Directorate and to the Sr. PS to DG. The Circular stated that Shri D.T.
Joseph, the then Secretary (Shipping) was retiring on 31/12/2005 and as
such he desired that the ACRs be reported / reviewed by him and be
submitted to him by 20/12/2005. The circular was signed by Shri P.H.
Krishnan, the Dy. Director General Shipping, DG of Shipping, Mumbai.
13
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
17. It still cannot be inferred from the contents of the above circular as to
whether Shri G.S. Sahni, the then DG of Shipping call for ACRs from all the
officers of the Directorate in his capacity as the Reporting Officer.
18. The Commission therefore directs the FAA to provide the Appellant herein,
with a specific and succinct reply with respect to the Question dealt with
above within 15 days of receiving this Order.
19. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
27.09.2011
Authenticated True Copies
(K.K. Sharma)
OSD & Deputy Registrar
14
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000494/SS
Name & Address of Parties
Ms./Mrs. Neera Malhotra,
Flat No. 10, Tirath Kunj,
Income Tax Colony 16, Queens Garden,
Pune – 411 001
The PIO/CPIO,
Minsitry of Shipping,
Directorate General of Shipping,
Jahaz Bhavan, W.H. Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001
The Appellate Authority,
Minsitry of Shipping,
Directorate General of Shipping,
Jahaz Bhavan, W.H. Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001
15
No comments:
Post a Comment