Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4805
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Central Information Commission, J
Ms. Mala Mahali – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, O/o the Senior Supdt of Post, Department of Post, RMS N Division, Cuttack – Respondent
Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ POSTS/A/2019/115570 -UM
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent: CPIO-cum-Sr.Superintendent, RMS “N” Division
The denial of RTI information was upheld based on personnel changes, and the Commission found no necessity for intervention.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Second Appeal - The Appellant sought information under the RTI Act regarding her employment matter, but the CPIO classified the information as 'NIL'. The First Appellate Authority upheld this decision, which led to a Second Appeal before the Commission. (Paras related to RTI application and responses)
(B) Absence of Parties during Hearing - The hearing was conducted despite the absence of both parties. The Commission received an email from the Appellant requesting an adjournment due to Lockdown and inability to present her case. The Respondent provided written submissions detailing the context of the RTI request and previous disciplinary actions against the Appellant. (Paras regarding the hearing)
Facts of the case:
The case involved an RTI application by the Appellant concerning a representation against disciplinary actions taken by her then Senior Superintendent. The CPIO responded that the relevant information was not available due to personnel being relieved from duty.
Findings of Court:
Given the circumstances and submissions presented, the Commission found that no intervention was warranted. The Appellant was advised to seek other forums for personal grievance redressal.
Issues: The key issue was whether the CPIO adequately responded to the RTI application and whether the Commission needed to intervene in the decisional process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the CPIO's response, deemed as 'NIL', was sufficient given the context of personnel changes, and the Appellant’s grievance did not necessitate further Commission intervention.
Result: The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
O R D E R
FACTS
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information in reference to her letter dated 24.07.2018; she requested to give her a reply as furnished in response to the above letter, etc.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 14.09.2018 provided the information to the Appellant as under:-
“In inviting a kind reference to your RTI application, the information as sought for by you under RTI Act-2005 may be treated as "NIL" form this division. Sri A K Nayak, Sr. SPOs Cuttack City Division, Cuttack has since been relieved on 31.05.2018 (Afternoon) and presently working as SSRM RMS 'N' Division, Cuttack and he is not able to supply the relevant information related to Cuttack City Division.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 18.03.2019, upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Absent;
Both the parties remained absent during the hearing. The Commission was however, in receipt of an email from the Appellant wherein she has requested for adjournment of the hearing scheduled due to Lockdown and also, she is not in a position to meet her counsellor for presenting the case before the Commission. In a trail-mail, the Appellant was further informed about the Audio Hearing conducted by the Commission for the convenience of all the parties but she showed her inability to attend the hearing due to her unpreparedness on account of unavailability of the required documents.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, CPIO-cum-Sr.Superintendent, RMS “N” Division, dated 07.05.2021 wherein it was submitted as under:-
“That, the case of Ms. Malla Mahali, Ex-PA, Cuttack City Division is belongs to Cuttack City Division, Cuttack. As per her application she has awarded punishment by the then Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Cuttack City Division Sri Aditya Kumar Nayak, who subsequently relieved from the post of Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Cuttack City Division and joined as Senior Superintendent RMS "N" Division and thereafter transferred as Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Puri Division. As such any information required by the applicant Ms. Malla Mahali is available at Cuttack City Division only. There is no involvement of the Senior Superintendent RMS "N" Division is this case.”
Furthermore, the Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, Cuttack City Division, Cuttack, vide letter dated 11.05.2021 wherein at the outset it was submitted that Smt. Mala Mahali, the Appellant had submitted one representation dated 24.07.2018 addressed to Sri A K Nayak, the then Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack City Division challenging therein his authority to impose major penalty on her. As she did not get any reply on the said representation dated 24.07.2018, she submitted one application dated 13.08.2018 requesting therein to give her reply to that representation under the RTI Act, 2005. The RTI application of the Appellant 13.8.2018 had been replied vide Senior Superintendent RMS 'N' Division, Cuttack-753003 vide letter no. dated 14.09.2018 and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack City Division letter no dated 24.l0.2018. The reply submitted by the CPIOs has been upheld by the Appellate Authority vide letter no. dated 18.03.2019. Being aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the CIC. Furthermore, it was submitted that the representation dated 24.7.2018 of the Appellant has been disposed of vide their office letter no- PG/CK City/RTI Appeal dated 11.05.2021. A copy of the said letter is enclosed herewith for favour of kind reference. It was further informed the Commission that Smt. Mala Mahali was proceeded against under Rule-14 of CCS (CC & A), R
