RTI applications cannot address grievance redressals; responses provided were deemed adequate under the Act.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Date of receipt of my complaint via registered post number RP237641158IN dt.

09.02.2024 alongwith CD containing audio clip and coloured photocopy of attendance register by Director General (Posts), New Delhi.

(ii) Whether action Initiated by Director General (Posts), New Delhi office level against erring official as well as the then Post Master Sh. Navtej Singh for extending his leniency towards erring official Kuldeep Singh for marking his attendance of previous days.

(iii) Name of Enquiry officer from Director General (Posts), New Delhi as complainant requested for a high-level enquiry instead of down marking to Division Office.

(iv) Provide copy of detailed action taken report dealt with at Director General (Posts), New Delhi.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

The mentioned PG Section letter No. P G-15/57/2024-PG-DOP dated 08.03.2024 has not been received in this office and the same is being transferred to The CPIO cum Asstt. Director (PG), Punjab Circle, Chandigarh under section 6(3) of RTI Act,2005 being the custodian of information.

However, in original RTI text, details of the complaint has been mentioned and the same complaint was received in this office through PG Portal vide complaint no. DPOST/E/2024/0004450 and complainant has already been replied. Moreover, the demanded information is a complaint & grievance matter which is not dealt under RTI Act, 2005. The same is also held in CIC Decision No. 3125 /IC (A) /2008, F. No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00939 dated 25th August, 2008 that there is no provisions under RTI Act, 2005 for redressal of grievances of the customers of the respondent.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.05.2024 stated that:

It is further observed that the information given by the CPIO cum Supdt. of Post Offices, Ludhiana (City) Division Ludhiana is in order as per spirit of RTI Act, 2005, but it is observed that partial information has been supplied by the CPIO- cum-Supdt. of Post Offices, Ludhiana City Division, Ludhiana, CPIO cum Supdt. of Post Offices, Ludhiana (City) Division Ludhiana is instructed to provide complete information as per RTI request within 15 days from the receipt of these orders.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.06.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Prashant Singh, CPIO (Ludhiana) and Gaurav Bhatkar (Chandigarh) attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information provided by the respondent is incomplete and misleading.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application was forwarded from Chandigarh Office to Ludhiana Office for necessary action. The final reply given by the Ludhiana Office on 20.06.2024 is extracted below:

“The mentioned PG Section letter No. PG-15/57/2024-PG-DOP dated 08.03.2024 has not been received in this office.

However, the similar complaint was received in this office on 13.02.2024 through email as well as through PG Portal vide complaint по. DPOST/E/2024/0004450 dated 13.02.2024.In respect of both these the reply was made on 21.02.2024 through the PG Portal.

It is further intimated that earlier on dated 19.07.2023 a same complaint was also received in this office through the AD PG), Punjab Circle vide lette