के(cid:3)(cid:4)ीयसूचनाआयोग Central Information Commission , बाबागंगनाथमाग(cid:19) मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka , New Delhi – 110067 नई(cid:21)द(cid:23)ली

File No : CIC/POSTS/C/2021/624200 Yogesh Karshanbhai Tank …. /Complainant िशकायतकता(cid:19)

VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Department of Posts, RTI Cell, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001. …. /Respondent (cid:29)ितवादीगण Date of Hearing : 29/06/2022 Date of Decision : 29/06/2022 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 30/04/2021 CPIO replied on : 18/05/2021 First appeal filed on : 25/05/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 15/06/2021 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/06/2021 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 30.04.2021 seeking the following information:

“please provide the copy of Directorate Letter No. 48-05/2004-Tech/KW dated 02.01.2008. Please upload the sign copy of this letter in RTI reply.”

The CPIO replied to the complainant on 18.05.2021 stating as follows:-

“The information sought by you does not pertain to the undersigned CPIO. A copy of your RTI application is already available with the concerned CPIO.”

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 25.05.2021. FAA’s order dated 15.06.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Not present.

Respondent: Puneet Bijaraniya, ADG (FS-II) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 21.06.2022 which are reproduced verbatim as under –

i. “Letter number 48-05/2004-Tech/KW dated 02.01.2008 had neither been issued by O/o the undersigned CPIO nor a copy of the same was available with the undersigned CPIO.

ii. However, a copy of the signed letter has been arranged by the undersigned from the field units and the same is enclosed for reference of your hon'ble office. It can be clearly seen that the letter has been issued by the ADG (Technology), Department of Posts addressed to all Heads of Circles and a copy of the same was not marked to O/o the undersigned CPIO.

iii. Therefore, the undersigned CPIO is in no manner a custodian of the letter and do not have authority to give a copy of the letter to the applicant.”

To a query from the Commission regarding the delay in providing information, the CPIO tendered his apologies and explained that although the RTI Application was forwarded to the concerned CPIO, ASP CEPT (Technology) on 02.05.2021, however, he had sent it back to their Division on 10.05.2021 but the fact remains that the averred letter was issued by the Technology Division and not by the F.S. division. For further delay, the CPIO failed to give any cogent explanation.

Decision The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the factum of inordinate delay caused by the concerned then CPIO, Directorate of Post -FS ADG (FS- II), New Delhi in not providing the relevant information sought for to the Complainant with their reply. This fact is evident from the action history reflected on the online RTI portal (annexed by the CPIO that the RTI Application) has been marked back by the then CPIO, Directorate of Post , ASP CEPT (Technology) to the CPIO, Directorate of Post, FS ADG (FS-II) on 10.05.2021; who instead of accessing the information sought by invoking Section 5(4) of RTI Act merely intimated the factual status of the actual custodian of the information sought to the Complainant on 18.05.2021 and compelled him to file the instant Complaint. Such colossal casual conduct of the concerned then CPIO, Directorate of Post, FS ADG (FS-II) tantamount to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Complainant’s right to information and is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act.

In view of the above, then CPIO, Directorate of Post, FS ADG (FS-II) is hereby directed to file his written explan