Friday, 21 November 2014

RTI Myth or Reality? Do you find response of CPIO, Department of Posts relevant to order of First Appellate Authority

A post on 19th November 2014 is RTI Application dtd. 03/09/2014. Irrelevant response of CPIO compelled me to Appeal before First Appellate Authority of Department of Post. The appeal and order of First Appellate Authority is posted on 20th November 2014. Here is a response from Department of Posts in compliance of the order of First Appellate Authority. It is followed by a 2nd Appeal before Central Information Commission (CIC)

No : CR-3/RTI-269/2014 dated at Delhi-110051 the                                             Dated 07-11-2014

Sub: Information under RTI Act 2005 – case of Sh. S.K. Virmani
            The 1st appellate authority Shri Adnan Ahmed, DPS (O), % The Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi-110001 vide his office letter No. PG/RIA/B-II-312/2014 dated 30.10.2014 has ordered to CPIO for providing complete information to RTI Applicant.
            As per office record article u/r was received on 26.08.2014 at Laxmi Nagar PO as missent and dispatch to AMPC New Delhi-110037 on 28.08.2014, but this office is unable to ascertain the correct reason for its return to other office being misspent article.
            You are requested to supply the photo copy of envelop of the said article to access the complete information in this regard as the correct reason/remark appear to be given on envelope of the said article at the time its return.

                                                                                                                     Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices
                                                                                                                              Delhi East Division

Copy of 2nd Appeal before Central Information Commission 


Sub: Second appeal in respect of my RTI application dated 03/09/2014 in respect of Speed Post Docket No. ED342229883IN - Non-supply of information despite FAA order dtd. 30/10/2014

Sl. No.
Page No.
RTI Application dated 03/09/2014
CPIO Ref. No. RTI/NDCD/273/14-15 dated 29/09/2014
CPIO Letter No. CR-3/RTI-269/2014 dated 14/10/2014
FA dated 23/10/2014
FAA Order No. PG/RIA/B-II-312/2014 dated 30/10/2014
DOP Letter No. CR-3/RTI-269/2014 dated 07/11/2014
Telephonic call from Mr. Sudhir Sharma on 03/11/2014 from Telephone No. 011-22376395

Dear Sir,

1.       I have submitted an application under RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, Department of Post, New Delhi as referred at Sl. No. 1 above.
2.       CPIO at Sl. No. 2 and 3 responded with their letter as referred at Sl. No. 2 and 3 above. However, no relevant information has been received except partial information in respect of point No. 1 (a).
3.       Finding no relevant responses as sought from CPIO vide RTI application dtd. 03/09/2014, the First Appeal was preferred before First Appellate Authority at Sl. No. 4 above.
4.       First Appellate Authority had concurred with the contentions raised by the applicant and has ordered accordingly. The relevant points of the order are quoted below:-

“Sh. S.K. Virmani preferred present appeal dated 23.10.2014 and appeals that; there is no relation between the statement of CPIO/SSPOs, East Dn and what he has sought for in point no 1 (b) to (e). And he has requested for photocopies of all the documents sought in his RTI application in respect of point no (b) to (e). As the information has been provided to him after the stipulated time, hence no additional fee is payable towards photocopy charges as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005.”

“The Undersigned has examined the initial RTI application and both the CPIOs reply and present appeal and is of the view that, the CPIO has not provided the available information to the appellant. Hence, the CPIO/SSPOs, Delhi East Dn, Delhi-110051 is directed to re-examine the case and provide the information sought for and documents to the appellant within a fortnight positively.”

5.       The applicant received a telephone call on 03/11/2014 from one Mr. Sudhir Sharma stating to be from Krishna Nagar, Post Office on the mobile of the applicant from a number 011-22376395 who sought additional information from the applicant. Even though the said information as sought by Mr. Sudhir Sharma was not relevant to be asked, the applicant still provided the information and confirmed that Docket No. of the article which is a subject matter of RTI Application pertain to an article consigned for “Bombay Fashion, F-147B, Nangal Bazar, Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi”. The first reaction to the provisioning of the details of the consignee was that the consignee falls in their jurisdiction. Even though the CPIO had responded vide his letter dated 14/10/2014 stating the article was received as missent, he confirmed that the article pertain to his jurisdiction. The applicant requested to supply the photocopies of all the documents which are relevant to the said docket no., details of the Post Man and articles delivery chart report of all the dockets meant for delivery on 27/08/2014 including that of the said article no. under reference. As stated above, the First Appellate Authority has also been of the view that CPIO has not provided the available information to the applicant i.e. photocopies of all the records mentioned at 1(b) to (e) of my RTI Application dated 03/09/2014.
6.       It seems that CPIO/ and the concerned officials are trying to hide the crucial information and hence have sent letter dated 07/11/2014 asking for photocopy of the envelope of the said article despite conveying the information about consignee through telephonic discussion on 03/11/2014. The applicant tried to contact Mr. Sudhir Sharma on telephone no. 011-22376395 on 17th and 18th November, 2014 and a minimum of 40 attempts must have been made to contact him on the above dates but none of the call was picked up.
7.       While I have stated the address of the consignee, seeking copy of the envelope has no meaning or of relevancy to the information sought. The envelope might have been stating the reason of return of the article but it is also a fact that I have no where sought the reason of return of the article in the present RTI application under reference and hence seeking copy of the envelope and then expressing inability “to ascertain the correct reason for its return to other office being misspent article” is to mislead the applicant and other departmental officials. When the Department of Posts has already been intimated the details of the consignee and consignee falling in the same jurisdiction, the Department of Posts should have identified the name of the Post Man on duty to that area and who ight have been given the number of articles for delivery between 26th and 28th August, 2014 including that of 27th August 2014 being crucial date. After identification of the name of the Post Man (even though seeking the name of the Post Man was also a subject matter of information sought by the applicant at point no. 1(b)), the Department of Post should have been able to retrieve copies of all reports including that of articles delivery chart report (where the signatures of recipients are taken) including all the articles handed over to him for delivery on those three days. The purpose of seeking copy of the envelope is of no meaning to the context of RTI application and moreover the envelope is a crucial document to prove possible nexus of the Postal Department. It is also pertinent to thought process as to how and on what basis and records; the CPIO responded to RTI application that the article was missent. Was it a casual furnishing of information under RTI Act 2005?  Let those documents be also placed on the table and shared with the Applicant.
8.       In view of the points as stated above, I appeal Second Appellate Authority to kindly arrange for the requisite information as per my RTI Application dated 03/09/2014 including supply of the articles delivery report of the postman on duty with the concerned area of 26th , 27th  and 28th August, 2014 as per points 1 (b) to 1 (e) of my RTI application.
9.       A copy of the 2nd Appeal is being sent to CPIO with a request that all connected documents be kept under safe custody till disposal of 2nd Appeal. It is pertinent to state that the period of fortnight as per FAA order is already over and DoP officials are trying to waste time and energy in diverting the subject.
Non-supply of information has already caused me to incur an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards postage, secretarial, legal and stationary expense which need to be considered for reimbursement. It is also beyond doubt that the information is not being provided intentionally diverting the attention by irrelevant reasoning, the penalty as provided under RTI Act may be imposed. 

No comments:

Post a Comment