ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2022 seeking information regarding OM No. 28-17/2021-SPG dtd. 30.08.2022 on the following points: (i) Kindly supply copies of all note sheets in File No. 28-17/2021-SP6, From the date of receipt of my representation (Nov-2021) and its processing till last page of final disposal of my representation by competent authority.

(ii) Kindly supply all the pages of correspondence in the same file (No. 28-17/2021- SPG) from page number 1 to last page, up to final disposal by competent authority (i.e. up to OM No. 28-17/2021-SPG Dated- 30.8.2022) including para wise comments called for, from reporting authority, Shri. H. C. Agrawal, then CPMG, Maharashtra Circle Mumbai and para wise comments called for, from reviewing authority Shri. Vineet Pandey, (then Member) on my representation.

2. The CPIO did not reply within stipulated time limit. Aggrieved with the same, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2022 Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “As the information sought for is lengthy and cannot be uploaded on the portal as it is more than 1 MB in size. Pl deposit Rs.150/- so that the same can be provided in hard copy.”

3. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.01.2023.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Omprakash Pokhriyal, Assistant Director of Posts, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information was crucial for her promotion. She further argued that the appellant had not replied on the online portal after lapse of 41 days and failed to provide hardcopies of the concerned file. She relied upon her written submissions, as extracted below:

“It is brought to your kind notice that the CPIO has taken action for sending the information that too incomplete information at later stage, after my submission of First Appeal. It is pointed out that the CPIO has not sent complete information i.e. hardcopies of notesheets, copies of all correspondence from the Postal Directorate File No. 28-17/2021- SPG with notesheets and correspondence papers, having my APAR with PDF attachments and representation dated 29.11.2022 with PDF attachment thereof. CPIO has done this intentionally to harass me and to harm my future promotion prospects. It was expected from First Appellate Authority and Director Postal Services (Staff), Postal Directorate, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001 to pass appropriate written order as per provisions under The Right to Information Act, 2005 to provide the information / hardcopies requested by the undersigned but First Appellate Authority has also failed to take action against CPIO, So far, hardcopies of notesheets, copies of all correspondence from the Postal Directorate File No. 28-17/2021-SPG are not received from any authority.”

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had requested the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 150/- towards the hardcopies of the information sought in the RTI application. Further, the deposit of Rs. 150/- did not appear to have been received in the office. Subsequently, upon receipt of the hearing notice, he provided complete information to the appellant vide letter dated 25.04.2024 and copies of the reply as well as note sheets/correspondences of file sought by the appellant were made available to her.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent provided the requisite information vide letter dated 25.04.2024. It may be noted that the respondent had intimated that the information sought was lengthy, hence, it was not feasible to upload the same on the o