ORDER

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 07.05.2021 seeking information on the following two points:

1. “In any case by the Employees Provident Fund Department, whatever documents are in the proceedings of 7a, those document which are sought by the applicant, how the certified copy of those documents is given, under which section and those document the copy, how much fee has to be deposited and in which head, please submit the name and attested copy of the head, sign Officer or any other officer of the department or Assistant Commissioner, Regional Commissioner. Are given

2. This information should be provided by the Employees Provident Fund Department, Indore Madhya Pradesh.”

Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, CPIO, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, RO, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vide letter dated 07.06.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.06.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.07.2021, informed as under:

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.

The Respondent submitted that the contents of the instant RTI Application are not specific and therefore no information could be provided to the Appellant. Moreover, the 7A proceedings are disciplinary proceedings and the documents relating to those proceedings are shared only with the concerned parties. He further added that since the Appellant is the complainant in most of the cases, he must be in possession of all the documents of averred 7A proceedings.

The Commission interjected that the initial reply furnished by the then CPIO is not adequate. Moreover, the Appellant has furnished a Hindi translated version of the instant RTI Application which is quite clear and specific. The Respondent submitted he is not in possession of the Hindi translated version of the RTI Application and thereafter the registry of this bench has made it available with the Respondent during hearing.

The Commission further queried the Respondent whether they can revisit the translated version of the instant RTI Application and accordingly furnish a revised reply to the Appellant, to which the Respondent affirmatively agreed.

Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent has furnished a reply with respect to the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame, the same is not adequate.

In view of the above and in the light of the submissions made during hearing the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to revisit the Hindi translated version of the instant RTI Application and accordingly furnish a revised categorical reply to the Appellant within a time frame of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.