Dated : 10-06-19
TO,
SH. RAJENDRA KUMAR, DEPUTY
SECRETARY (Ad.IIA&B) AND 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 274-A (SECOND FLOOR), NORTH BLOCK, NEW
DELHI-110001.(APPELLATE AUTHORITY)
Sub: APPEAL
AGAINST THE INFORMATION DATED 14.05.19
(vide F.No. A-26011/164/2018-Ad.II.A) RECEIVED
FROM SH. GAURAV SHUKLA, CENTRAL
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA.
Sir,
MOST
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.
That the Appellant herein sought information vide Application dated 18.04.19
requesting to provide the following information-
1.
Number of Officers who have been given the benefit of the verdict in Civil Appeal No(s) 8883 of
2011 with SLP (C) No. 23513 of 2015, SLP (C) No. 3189 of 2015 and SLP (C) No. 17576 of 2017 and Review
Petition (Civil) No. 2512 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 8883 of 2011 with Review
Petition ?No. 2519 of 2018 in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 17576 of 2017.
2.
The Provisions under which these Officers have been given the said
benefit.
3.
Number of Officers who have got the said benefit through court orders.
4.
Number of Officers who have got the said benefit through contempt in court
orders.
5.
Number of Officers who have gone to the legal courts for seeking the said
benefit.
6.
Number of Officers who have not been given the said benefit.
2.
But very unfortunately, the Appellant has not been provided with the requested
information saying that it is not maintained by the concerned section. Instead
I have been provided with the list of the various cadre control authorities
working under CBIC asking me to seek the information from them under the
shelter of DoP&T O.M. No.F/10/022008-IRDt. 24.09.10.
3.
Being aggrieved, the Appellant seeks indulgence of your authority on the
following amongst other GROUNDS FOR
APPEAL:
A.
The reply regarding information sought is per-se wrong and deliberately not
furnished to the appellant as the same reveals discriminatory and negligent
practice.
B. The information sought is the matter of
record in as much as all cadre control authorities working under the CBIC
proceed under the control of CBIC in all court cases and keep communicating
every development to the CBIC in r/o such court cases and also all cadre
control authorities keep taking directions from the CBIC to implement court
orders providing all details as sought by the appellant. Understood thus the
material which is a matter of record can always be revealed or furnished to the
applicant/appellant in accordance with the provisions of Right to Information
Act, 2005. Not providing the sought information in the shelter of DOPT OM
amounts to misconduct for which the provisions of penalty can be invoked to
keep the confidence of Public in general and the appellant herein in
particular.
C.
For that the information dated 14.05.19 is abuse of process of the law and has
been used as tool to misguide the appellant and also to cover up the apparent
mis-deeds and ongoing mal-practice of not caring for the grievances/RTI/court
matters.
D. The issue involved is the implementation of
Subramaniam verdict (grant of time scale after ACP/MACP upgradation). A huge
number of officers were/are forced to go to the legal courts to implement the
verdict despite of being finalized and settled as law of the land by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court particularly after the dismissal of SLP as well as the review
petition filed by the CBIC. Needless to submit that non-implementation of the
said verdict in rem amounts to the contempt of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
E. The sought information is very well available with the CBIC as
evident from the letters F. No. A-23011/20/2019-Ad.IIA Dt. 17.05.19 signed by
the CPIO himself, F. No. A-23011/3/2019-Ad.IIA Dt. 27.03.19 signed by the CPIO
himself, F. No. A-23011/39/2018-Ad.IIA Dt. 25.02.19 etc. of the CBIC.
F. The sought information is very well available with the CBIC because
the CBIC has been made the respondent in every legal case relating to the issue.
G. Even otherwise, the CPIO is bound to provide the information under
Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. No need to mention that the DOPT OM under which
shelter the sought information has not been provided to the appellant is noway
above the Act. As per Section 6(3) of RTI Act, where a public authority to whom
an application for information is made finds that the information demanded is
held by another public authority, he is duty bound to transfer the application
for information to the concerned public authority under intimation to the
information seeker.
H. The
CPIO did not perform his duties sincerely and diligently by not maintaining the
information which he was otherwise duty bound to. The CPIO cannot shift his burden of work on
the shoulders of public to seek the information from other public authorities
which he was to maintain in due course of his official duties.
I. Every
Public Authority, vide Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, was given 120 days to
update & maintain its record in such a way, so that it could be made
available to the public. The CPIO vide
letter dated 14.05.19 informed the Appelant that the information as sought by
you, is not maintained by Ad.IIA Section CBIC.
It is also a fact that every subordinate officer is required to intimate
the parent department each & every activity which has all India
ramifications. It is also a fact that
the CBIC was a party to the orders which had been referred in the application,
therefore denying the information to the Appellant which the CPIO was otherwise
required to maintain cannot be a ground to ask the Appellant to seek the
information from the Public Authorities mentioned in the enclosed list.
J. The
Central Information Commission vide its order F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01005 Dated, the 30th October,
2007 in the matter of Sudesh Kumar vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Delhi-I observed that “The respondents urged that this information was not
maintained by them centrally in the regular course of business. They pointed
out that they will have to collect this information from offices of all
competent authorities within the public authority if these were to be provided
to the appellant.
The appellant pointed out that
the Central Vigilance Commissioner had directed that such lists had to be
prepared, which was also necessary in the interest of monitoring this
information crucial as it was for flawless functioning of the public authority.
The respondents urged that it was
possible that CVC might have asked for such lists in a given year, but
preparing these lists was not part of the extant system/arrangement.
The respondents also mentioned
that if the Commission directs they will have to collect this information from
all its sources and prepare the list for the appellant, which shall again be
one-off and not systemic, i.e. to be prepared routinely year after year.
Decision:
After
considering all the submissions in the matter, it is directed that within 2
months of the receipt of these orders, the respondents will prepare and give
the list of Superintendents and Inspectors continuing for more than 2 years in
sensitive postings, as requested in this item of query by the appellant. The
respondents are also directed that they will institute within 3 months from the
date of the receipt of this order a system for centrally collecting, collating
and monitoring this information, viz list of Superintendents and Inspectors
continuing for more than 2 years in sensitive postings.”
K. The
Appellant also would like to point out that the Respondent, collects, collattes
and disseminate the information to the Parliament of India, whenever any member
seeks any information by raising a question.
The Respondent never asks the Parliament of India to seek the
information from the one other authority as it is scattered.
L. Hence, the act of the learned CPIO not providing the sought
information is not proper and legal.
4. Under
the circumstances mentioned above, it is prayed that the present appeal be
allowed with the directions to the concerned authority to furnish the relevant
information sought in the Application under RTI Act.
APPELLANT
(RAVI MALIK),
240, RAZAPUR,
GHAZIABAD-201002 (U.P.)
Copy with the request for
necessary action to:
The RTI Cell, PMO, South
Block, New Delhi.
