O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Complete citation/s of CIC Decision/s that found that section 4(1)(b)(vii) is Not Applicable to CIC, by overriding the Decision dated 26/03/2009 on my Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00139 & Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01702 (that had allowed my request for direction u/s 19(8)(a)(iii) to publish information u/s 4(1)(b)(vii) on CIC website).

(ii) The complete information in terms of section 4(1)(b)(ii) to (v) relating to the submitting of recommendations/comments by Deputy Registrars of ICs on the self-appraisal forms / audit reports submitted by P/As for compliance with DOPT guidelines for implementation of section 4.

(iii) The particulars of the competent authority mentioned by hand in the CIC Circular.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

i. No such information is available.

ii. This does not pertain to the Admin Section. A copy of the RTI has been sent to the Legal Cell of CIC with a request to furnish the information directly to the applicant.

3. Dissatisfied with the responses received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.11.2022 directed the CPIO to revisit the RTI Application for point 2 as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.11.2022.

5. The appellant Gita Dewan Verma and on behalf of the respondent Devender Kumar, S.O and Umed Singh Kanyal, Consultant, S.O Legal Cell, attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant’s was heard at length, to succinctly put forth her contentions, the content of her written submission is reproduced hereunder for reference:-

Request point-2 was for: “The complete information in terms of section 4(1)(b)(ii) to (v) relating to the submitting of recommendations/comments by DRs of ICs on the self-appraisal forms/audit reports submitted by PAs for compliance with DOPT guidelines.” Admin CPIO forwarded off-line to Legal Cell CPIO who gave off-line response. FAA pre-empted appeal with online revisit direction to Legal Cell CPIO on online appeal concerning Admin CPIO and did not admit off-line appeal after the further off-line response. 2nd Appeal, for appellate decision, was returned on account of this one. Papers are on record vide D. No. 609925 dated 21/02/23.

Request was w.r.t wording of the then Transparency Audit Timeline circular, from which I misunderstood that DRs submit comments to ICs. Current ‘Timeline for Third Party Audit’ circulars with ‘date for offering the advice/ recommendations by DRs of CIC/ICs of the Commission’ match DOPT’s guideline. I now see that DRs offer recommendations to Ministries/PAs and, therefore:

I seek direction u/s 19(8)(a)(iii) for publishing information u/s 4(1)(b) and u/s 4(1)(c) about the offering of advice/recommendations to Ministries/PAs in pursuance of para-4.5 of DOPT guidelines for disclosure u/s 4 – because: a) Supreme Court judgment dated 17/08/23 in WP(C) No. 990 of 2021 (added as Link Paper D. No. 654708) makes it clear that the recommendations are to be given u/s 25(5) and, in absence of rules, the role of DRs u/s 25(5) is matter of policy warranting due disclosure u/s 4(1)(c);

b) Information of “Deputy Registrar of CIC/IC” itself is unpublished u/s 4(1)(b), with the organogram published on CIC website showing Registrar -- > Deputy Registrars --> DR(Registry) and nothing about the working of the last; and c) Information about operation of section 25 in CIC is not published and not accessible in RTI process. [I have not got material either of Agenda No.2: (Operation of Section 25) of CIC Meeting held on 15/01/18 (pending F. No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/609117) or of the Meeting on 20/05/20 informed by CPIO herein (correspondence added as Link Paper D. No. 654710)