I '161 g - cexchd1.gov.incexchd1.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI APPEAL ORDERS 2019-20.pdf · The CPIO vide his reply issued vide letter C No.IV(16)HQ/Tech/ChdL rabhash/81/19/ dated

ChI4I(>1'll~~~~~, ..:> ..:>

OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY

vi1 Q fl tJ 3fR ~ 3"?1TC; ~RKfl 3i I 'll 'f(i I (>I zr, ~ ..:>..:> .

GST & CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHANDIGARH ~.3fR. ~~Sdl, ~~ -19, ~-17-~ ~

C.R. BUILDING, PLOT No. -19, SECTOR-17/C, CHANDIGARH Ph: 0172- 2700690 email: commissionerad·[email protected]

No. TECH-RTIOAPL/32/2019-HQ-GST-CHD I '161 g Date: 19.08.2019

Order-in-Appeal No. lO{RTI{APPL{CHD{2019-20

The appellant, if aggrieved, by this order may prefer an appeal to the Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi - 110066 An appeal should be filed within 90 days from the receipt of this order.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

Sh. .'CO· , pt Floor RBC, Zirakpur, Mohali ('the iellant' in short) had filed an application on 16.07.2019 under the RTI Act, 15 (' the Act' in short) with the Central Public Information Officer, GST & trat Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh for supply of following information:-

'. Details of OPC held since 25.07.2016 (for all cadres) at zonal level (i.e. date OPC, Chairman/Member of the committee, OPC held for promotion from 'ide to grade, Establishment Order No. & date, File no. etc.

Benchmark of APAR Grading (Average/Good/Very good/ Outstanding) isidered for promotion etc. to declare a candidate FIT for promotion. The tchmerk should be provided separately for each OPC (for all cadres) at zonal el.

')etails of OM/ Circular/ Clarification under which Benchmark of APAR Grading ; considered for promotion. ~,

No. of Candidate declared unfit for promotion (all cadre separately & all iqorv) on the basis of the fact that they were not having VERY GOOD larks into their APARtaken under consideration during the period 25.07.2016 '1.03.2019. The details should be provided Date of OPC wise separately. /I

The CPIO vide his reply issued vide letter C No.IV(16)HQ/Tech/ChdL rabhash/81/19/ dated 01.08.2019 informed the applicant that record being inous, he might come and inspect the files only after giving notice of at me week in advance.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

trieved with the CPIO's reply, the appellant has preferred to appeal at first appellate forum with reason that the CPIO has not provided him the stion as sought vide his RTI application.

3. COMMENTS OF THE CPIO:

The CPIO vide his letter C.No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTI/Prabhash/81/19/381 dated 14.08.2019 stood by his reply that as the records is voluminous, the appellant may come and inspect the files after giving notice of at least one week time in advance.

4. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:

4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, reply of the CPIO in respect of the RTI Application, comments offered against the RTI appeal and the documents available on record. I find that the CPIO in reply to the RTI application has not supplied the desired information/documents to the appellant and has rather asked the appellant to inspect the records citing the reason that the information / records sought for are voluminous in nature. I, therefore, observe that the following point warrants determination in the case:

(i) Whether the decision of the CPIO in allowing for inspection of records/files instead of supplying the desired information/records is in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.?

4.2 I have gone through the RTI application of the appellant. I find that the appellant has sought for vast and varied information such as : -

"Details of OPC held since 25.07.2016 (for all cadres) at zonal level (i.e. date of oPC, Chairman/Member of the committee, OPC held for promotion from grade to grade, Establishment Order No. & date, File no. etc., Benchmark of APAR Grading (Average/Good/Very good/ Outstanding) considered for promotion etc. to declare a candidateFIT for promotion. The benchmark should be provided separately for each OPC (for all cadres) at zonal level "

4.3 A bare perusal of the detailed information so sought for by the appellant elucidate that the said information is indeed voluminous. I observe that in catena of judgments / decisions rendered by higher judicial forums, it has been held that the RTI Act should not lead to employees of Public Authorities prioritizing information furnishing at the cost of their normal and regular duties. In this context, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) No. 7526/2009, has observed as under:

"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eredicetion of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty.

Page. No. 2 of 3

The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTf Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTf Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties.

4.4 In view of the above, I don't find any infirmity in the decision of the CPIO of allowing inspection of the records / documents, instead of furnishing the information asked for in the RTI application. The CPIO is directed to facilitate the inspection of the records by the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time within 15 days from the receipt of this order.

5. The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly disposed off in the above terms.

(Dr. Puneeta Bedi) Joint Commissioner

-Curn- Appellate Authority REGO.A.O. Sh. : _.4 -.~-

1st Floor RBC, Zirakpur, Mohali-140603

Copy to:- (i) The Assistant Commissioner-cum-CPIO, GST & CX 1'/ Chandigarh. ~) Guard File.

Commissionerate,

~,,\~yO\~ \

Superintendent (Adjudication)

Page No.3 of 3

I

vi1 C! fl t'l 3-tR c11t'n:r:3N'R ~rc;cn }ll lFf("l I (>l <:1, ~ ~ ~ .

. GST & CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHANDIGARH "Bt . .3-l"R". ~fc>:5dl, cc;ffc~ -19, ~-17-"Bt ~

C.R. BUILDING, PLOT No. -19, SECTOR-17/C, CHANDIGARH Ph: 0172- 2700690 email: commissionerad·[email protected]

CfiI<:11(>l<:1~~~~~, ~ ~ OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE

AUTHORITY

C.No. TECH-RTIOAPL/26/2019-HQ-GST-CHD q 1 4"7 Date: 05.08.2019

Order-in-Appeal No. 09{RTI{APPL{CHD{2019-20

(i) The appellant, if aggrieved, by this order may prefer an appeal to the Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi - 110066 An appeal should be filed within 90 days from the receipt of this order. (i i)

1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1.1 Sh. ._- .. .: , . ~-.-- - _ -,1st Floor RBC, Zirakpur, Kharar, Mohali ('the Appellant' in short) had filed an application on 14.06.2019 under the RTI Act, 2005 (' the Act' in short) with the Central Public Information Officer, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh for supply of following information:-

"Reference is invited to Point no. 6 of minutes of OPC meeting dated 10- 11.05.2019, held for promotion of Inspectors to the grade of Superintendent whereunder it has been mentioned that As per OOP& T O. M. No. 35034/7/97-Estt(O) dated 08.02.2002 the benchmark for promotion from the grade of Inspector to the grade of Superintendent Group 8 was Good but it has been changed to Very Good w.e.f. 25.07.2016 vide OOP&T F.No.35034/3/2015 Estt.(O) dated 28.09.2016. It is requested to inform that:

1. Whether any clarification in respect of enhancing of benchmark for promotion from Good to Very Good has been sought from OOPT or C8IC before or after issuance of Establishment Order No.28/2019 dated 11.05.2019 by the Principal Commissioner (Cadre controlling Authority), CGST Chandigarh zone. Please supply a copy of such letter.

2. Whether any clarification in respect of enhancing of benchmark for promotion from Good to Very Good has been received from OOPT or C8IC. Please supply a copy of such letter. "

1.2 The CPIO vide his reply issued vide letter C. No. IV(16)HQjTech/CHD/RTI{Prabhash/81/19/9666 dated 04.07.2019 refused to provide the information to the appellant citing the reason that the information sought is in the form of queries, therefore not covered under Section 2(f) of Act.

I

2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

Aggrieved with the CPIO's reply, the appellant has preferred to appeal at first stage appellate forum and has requested for the information sought in his RTI application.

3. COMMENTS OF THE CPIO: The CPIO vide his IV(16 )HQjTechjCHDjRTIjPrabhashj81j19j336 dated 17.07.2019 following comments:

letter C.No. offered the

"In this regard, it is submitted thet earlier AO(ET-1) vide its letter dated 03.07.2019 has informed that the information sought is in the form of queries, therefore not covered under Section 2(f) of RTf Act. However, in reply to his subject appeal, AO(ET-1) vide its letter dated 16.07.2019 has supplied a copy of letter dated 08.07.2019 issued by Addl. Commissioner, GST Commissionerate, Chandigarh regarding prescribed benchmark for promotions. The same letter dated 08.07.2019 has been sent to applicant through e-mail dated 17.07.2019."


4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, reply of the CPIO in respect of the RTI Application, grounds of appeal, comments offered by the CPIO against the RTI appeal and the documents available on record. I find that that information was denied to the RTI appellant by the CPIO citing the reason that the information sought by him are in the form of 'queries' and do not fall under the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, while offering comments in response to the RTI appeal, the CPIO has expressed his willingness to supply the information.

4.2 As the CPIO is desirous to supply the requisite information to the appellant, the appeal is disposed off with the directions to the CPIO to supply the information to the appellant. However, I observe that CPIO has failed to appreciate the RTI Act in its right prospective in as much as the CPIO has refused to supply the information to the appellant at the stage of handling his RTI application despite the fact that the information was well within the ambit of definition of 'information' stipulated under Section 2(f) of the Act, as is evident from his act of supplying information at the stage of appeal. At this juncture, I observe that in the decision of Hon'ble CIC in the case of Nandlal B Pardeshi vs Mumbai Port Trust portion, pronounced vide order No. CICjMPTRSjAj2017j109173 dated 25.04.2018, the matter of Section 2(f) of Act ibid has been dealt. Relevant para of the decision is extracted here-in-below : -

"The Commission does not fully subscribe to the above said observation as the queries in the nature of "why" & "when ", per se do not disentitle an applicant from seeking information under Section 2(f) of the RTf Act. In case there is any record available in regard to any question raised in an RTf application, the same needs to be provided under Section 7(1) of the RTf Act. When however these questions are mostly hypothesises/opinion expressed opinions involving no record/document maintained by the respondent authority, one can safely disregard these as not being covered under the definition of "information" as enunciated exhaustively u/s 2(f) of the RTf Act. "

Page No.2 of 3

4.3 I, hereby, direct the CPIO to provide the requisite information sought for to the appellant as per the available records and to adopt a more cautious approach in discharging his statutory duties as CPIO as cast upon under the RTI Act.

5. The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly disposed off in the above

terms.

REGD.A.D. Sh. -. r- r -

(Dr. puneeta Bedi) Joint Commissioner

-Cum- Appellate Authority

.•...• . - ..••• ...• ~ ,... I .•..•. ,,_ "..... _.,. (

i" Floor RBC/ Zirakpur/ Kharar, Mohali

Copy to:- (i) The Assistant , .. ,~handigarh. f Guard File.

commissioner-cum-CPIO/ GST & CX C\\iSSionerate/

~~\Q~\yO'~ Superintendent (Adjudication)

Page No.3 of 3

j- Cflldl<>lll ~ .3fT<:lCFc1 ~ ~ ~,

.:> .:>

OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY

v11Qtitl3fR~3NfC;~~ 31 I:J,CfCi 1<>1 II , ~ GST & CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHANDIGARH

~ . .31'R. ~f(>:Sdl, cc>ifc~ -19, ~-17-~ ~ C.R. BUILDING, PLOT No. -19, SECTOR-17/C, CHANDIGARH

Ph: 0172- 2700690 email: commissloneradtudlcatloncp mail.com

C.No. TECH-RTIOAPL/20/2019-HQ-GST-CHD I Q7~q Date: 01.08.2019

Order-in-Appeal No. 08/RTI/APPL/~Hu~/2019-20

(i) The appellant, if aggrieved, by this order may prefer an appeal to the Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi - 110066 An appeal should be filed within 90 days from the receipt of this order. (ii)


1.1 Sh. " : .. , " C.R. Colony, Lawrence Road, Amritsar ('the Appellant' in short) had filed an application on 17.05.2019 under the RTI Act, 2005 CAct' in short) with the Central Public Information Officer, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh for supply of following information:-

(I) Authenticated Roster on the basis of which Review OPC to the grade of superintendents were conducted on 27.12.2018 .

(II) Against which Roster Point he has been placed on promotion in the Review OPC dated 27.12.2018;

(III) Basis on which the said paint against which he has been promoted got vacant and on which date (details i.e. Name, date of birth, date of retirementjVRS etc.)

(IV) Authenticated list of Superintendent who got retiredjVRSjdeath during 2015-16 & 2016-17 along wittt: their date of birthjretirementjVRSjdeath. Also provide the authenticated list of superintendents who were promoted against the vacancies during 2015-16 & 2016-17.

(V) Reasons recorded on note-sheet for not considering my representation dated 08.11.2019 and 19.02.2019

(VI) Action taken by the Cadre Controlling in respect of CC Inspection Note dated 24.04.2019 regarding vacancy position to report Cc.

1.2 The CPIO vide his reply issued vide letter C. No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTI/Ram Kumar/72/19/9598 dated 20.06.2019 supplied the following reply to the appellant:

i. Copies of relevant Roster are enclosed herewith;

'".

ii. --Do-- iii. --00- iv. --00-- v. Representation dated 19.02.2019 of the applicant is under consideration in

relevant file while another representation i. e. 08.11.2019 is not clear. vi. Relevant report has been forwarded to Chief Commissioner's office.


Aggrieved with the reply dated 20.06.2019 of the (PIO, the appellant has filed an appeal dated 27.06.2019 under the Act on the following grounds:-

1. The CPIO has not provided the authenticated Roster on the basis of which Review OPC to the grade of Superintendents were conducted on 27.12.2018 as asked vide my RTf Application. He has supplied the only list mentioned in excel sheet in the concerned office without having signature of any of the responsible officer who was supposed to authenticate the Roster.

(a) It appears that neither the Cadre Control Authority not Chief Commissioner Unit was serious about the convening opc. If no authenticated Roster is maintained/available in either of the offices, the (PIO may be directed to provide the copy of Notesheet alongwith the copy of Roster where the competent authority (i.e. Chief Commissioner, Pro Commissioner and Additional Commissioner) has accorded the Roster and OPC has been convened or permission to inspect the file may be granted. The un-authenticated Roster for OPC is not acceptable

2. It was asked from the CPIO against which Roster Point I have been placed in the Review OPC dated 27.12.2018. The CPIO in his above said letter has written "copies of relevant Roster are enclosed herewith".

(a) The Roster provided by the CPIO is not authenticated by any of the competent authority cennot be relied upon. The CPIO was required to provide the Roster Point against which I was promoted. It is, therefore, requested that the CPIO may be asked to clarify my Roster Point against which I waspromoted.

3. It was asked from the CPIO that the "Basis on which the said point which I have been promoted got vacant and on which date (details i. e. Name, date of birth, date of retirement/VRS etc.).

(a) The Roster provided by the CPIO is not authenticated by any of the competent authority cannot be relied upon. On perusal of the un-authenticated Roster, it has been found that my name is appearing at Sr. No. 192 and in remarks column it has been observed that I have been promoted against Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma who was retired on 31.10.2015. Does it mean that I was due for promotion from October 2015 And if the same why I have been promoted w. e.f 23.01.2017. The CPIO may be directed to provide the reasons recorded on note-sheet for doing so and not following the Roster by promoting me not against whom I was to be promoted.

Page No.2 of 5

4. It was asked from the CPIO that the "Authenticated list of Superintendent who got retired/VRS/death during 2015-16 & 2016-17 alongwith their date of birth/retirement/VRS/death. Also provide the authenticated list of superintendents who were promoted against these vacancies during 2015-16 & 2016-17".

(a) The Roster provided by the CPIO is not authenticated by any of the competent authority cannot be relied upon.

(b) The CPIO may be asked to provide the above information or transfer the matter to the concerned CPIO in respect of retired/VRS/death during the said period. Further, authenticated list of superintendents who were promoted against these vacancies during 2015-16 and 2016-17 may also be supplied.

5. Reasons recorded on note-sheet for not considering my representation dated 08.11.2019 and 19.02.2019.

In this regard, it is submitted that due to typographical mistake my representation dated 08.11.2018 was written as 08.11.2019.

(a) The representation dated 08.11.2018 was filed by me against the Establishment Order No.60/2018 dated 31.10.2018 for which grievances were called for vide letter C.No.II-3(6)ET-I/2018/1556 to 76 dated 05.11.2018 and I filed my representation dated 08.11.2018 through fax as well as through e-mail. The CPIO may be directed to provide the copy of reasons recorded on the note-sheet for not considering my representation dated 08.11.2018 along-with copies of note-sheet.

6. "Action taken by the Cadre Controlling in respect of CC Inspection Note dated 24.04.2019 regarding vacancy position to report CC".

(e) The CPIO may be asked to provide the copies of note-sheet along-with reply submitted to the Chief Commissioner Office as the complete action in respect of vacancy position pertains JO Cadre Controlling Unit.

3. COMMENTS OF THE ePIO:

The CPIO vide his letter C.No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTI/Ram Kumarj72/19j327 dated 15.07.2019 offered the following comments:

i. Authenticated copy of ROSTER has been sent to the applicant through mail dated 12.07.2019.

ii. -do-

iii. -do-

iv. Copies of the relevant roster and the OPC minutes have been sent to the applicant through mail dated 12.07.2019.

v. Copies of the relevant notesheet has been sent to the applicant through mail dated 12.07.2019.

vi. Copies of relevant notings and reply sent to the CC office have been sent to the applicant through mail dated 12.07.2019. /I

Page No.3 of 5

I~ c 4. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:

4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, reply of the (PIO in respect of the RTI Application, grounds of appeal, comments offered by the (PIO on the RTI appeal and documents available on record. From the grounds of appeal, I find that the issue before me for determination in this appeal is Whether (PIO in reply to RTI application has supplied incomplete information.

4.2 In order to arrive at the decision, I need to take up the point-wise reply given by the (PIO in respect of the information sought for by the appellant in his RTI application viz. a viz. the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant.

4.3 I find that Section 2(j) of the RTI Act grants a citizen the right to seek certified copies of documents or records held by or under the control of any Public Authority and which does not fall under section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 providing exemption from disclosure of information.

Section 2(J) of the RTI Act is reproduced here-in-under for reference:

Section 2 (j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection- of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;

4.3.1 (oming to the issue, I find that in respect of Point No. (I) of the RTI application, the appellant is not satisfied with the reply given by the (PIO citing the ground that (PIO has not provided the authenticated Roster as sought for by him. Rather an excel sheet without having signature of any of the responsible officer has been supplied to him. I find from the comments offered by the (PIO, that he has submitted the authenticated Roster and the same has been emailed to the appellant on 12.07.2019. Further, Section 2(j) of the Act ibid makes it obligatory upon the CPIO to supply certified/authenticated copies of records or documents asked for by the RTI applicant. However, as the CPIO is now willing to supply the authenticated roster, he is directed to supply the same to the appellant immediately.

4.3.2 As regards the information asked for by the appellant at Point No. (II) & (III) of his RTI application where-under he had asked against which Roster Point he had been placed in Review ope dated 27.12.2018 and basis on which the said point against which he has been promoted got vanant and on which date (details i.e. Name, date of birth, date of retirement/VRS etc.), respectively, I find that the (PIO in response to the RTI appeal has just stated that authenticated copy of Roster has been sent to the applicant through mail dated 12.07.2019. I observe that the information supplied by the CPIO is not connected with the information asked for by the appellant. I observe that the cpro is duty bound under the RTI Act to provide the correct and specific information to the applicant if the information is held by him or is under his control. If the information is not available with the (PIO, the same should be informed to the applicant in clear words. Sending vague information defeats the very purpose of RTI Act of bringing

Page No.4 of 5

transparency in the working of Government departments. Hence, the CPIO is directed to supply the point-wise specific information as has been asked for the appellant.

I 4.3.3 As regards Point No. (IV) of RTI application, I again find that authenticated list as sought for by the appellant has not been supplied. However, the CPIO is desirous of supplying the authenticated list now, as such he is directed to supply the same to the appellant immediately.

4.3.4 As regards Point No.(V) of RTI application, I find that the appellant had asked for reasons recorded on notesheet for not considering his representations dated 08.11.2019 and 19.02.2019. The CPIO in his reply dated 20.06.2019 replied that the representation of the appellant dated 19.02.2019 is under consideration in the relevant file and another representation dated 08.11.2019 is not clear to him. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that due to typographical mistake date was wrongly written as 08.11.2019 instead of 08.11.2018. The CPIO is directed to supply the copies of relevant documents to the appellant immediately, as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

4.3.5 As regards the last Point i.e. (VI) of RTI application whereunder action taken by the Cadre Controlling in respect of CC inspection Note dated 24.04.2019 regarding vacancy position to report CC was asked for, CPIO is directed to supply the documents to the appellant immediately as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. .


(Dr. Puneeta Bedi) Joint Commissioner

-Curn- Appellate Authority REGD.A.D. Sh. ' L;" ::" v • :~' , • - ':": C.R. Colony, Lawrence Road, Amritsar

Copy to:- (i) The Assistant Commissioner-cum-CPIO,

Chandigarh. ~ Guard File.

GST & CX Commissionerate,

~o 1\ oco\ -,.'>1'\ Superintendent (Adjudication)

Page NO.5 of 5

I File No.TECH-RTIOAP.Ll22/2019-HQ-GST -CHD I () I"' c-..., \ , ~~ \ \ \ ~I t) 0 \ ~"- \.~. ()-1_ ~c

q,1</I<'1<.1 3f1:R' 3-T'RfCfC1 W ~ ~, .;)

OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY vilQfltt 3iR~~~rc;:q:;- 311~chilc>ll1, ~

GST & CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHANDIGARH . 'BT.3lR. f61fc>:5JI, ~~ -19, ~-17-'BT ~

C.R. BUILDING, PLOT No. -19, SECTOR-!7/C, CHANDIGARH

CNo. TECH-RTIOAPLl2 2/2019-HQ-GST -CHD

Order- in- Appeal No. 07/RTII APPL/CHD/2019 - 20

(i) The appellant, if aggrieved, by this' order may prefer an appeal to the Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi - 110066 An appeal should be filed within 90 days from the receipt of this order. (ii)

1 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 1.1 Sh. ... Near Gopal Sweets, Sector 125, Mohali, Punjab ('the Appellant' in short) had filed an application on 13.05.2019 under the RTI Act, 2005 ('Act' in short) with the Central Public Information Officer, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh for supply of following information:-

1. Copy of Seniority List of Inspectors as on 01.01.2019 issued by the office of Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Chandigarh vide lette FNo. II-34(01)ET.I/NRPARMAR/2019 dated 0705.2019 alongwith its corrigendums, if any"';

2. Copies of proceedings of DPC meeting held on 10.05.2019 for promotion of Inspector to the grade of Superintendent vide which Establishment Order No. 28/2019 dated 11.05.2019 has been issued.

3. Copies of instructions, orders, other relied upon documents issued by DoPT or by any other authorities on the basis of which Establishment Order No. 28/2019 dated 11.05.2019 has been issued.

4. Copies of instructions/guidelines under which previous DPCs held for promotion of Inspector to the grade of Superintendent whereunder GOOD gradings in the ACRI APAR was benchmark.

5. Copies of APAR/ACR gradings for the year 2008-09 to 2011-18 in respect of myself i.e. Ashwani Kumar, Inspector

1.2 The CPIO in his reply issued vide letter C. No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTII Ashwani/60/1919542 dated 13.06.2019 supplied the following information: -

Page No.1 of 5

~-------------- File No.TECH-RTIOAPLl22/2019-HQ-GST -CHD

1. The relevant seniority list along with corrigendum have been uploaded on website of CGST Commissionerate, Chandigarh:

2. The Minutes of Meeting of DPC are enclosed herewith:

3. The E.o. No. 28/2019 has been issued as per the recommendations of the DPC:

4. Previous RDPC was held in December 2018 for regularization of Ad-hoc Superintendents for the Panel year 2013-14 to 2016-17 and the grading for the promotion in all cadres changed bench-mark was conducted for the panel Year 2017-18:

5. Transferred to concerned CPIO under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for supplying information directly to the applicant.


Aggrieved with the reply dated 13.06.2019 of the CPIO, the appellant has filed an appeal dated 15.06.2019 under the Act on the following grounds:-

1. Regarding point No 1 incomplete and misleading information has been provided. Seniority list and a forwarding letter dated 07.05.2019 is only available and uploaded on website of CGST Commissionerate, Chandigarh and no other corrigendum related to seniority in my case has been uploaded as my juniors at serial no. 960 to 966 were still senior to me before commencement of DPC held on 10.05.2019 and 11.05.2019 and DPC has been held without revising the seniority as per law. As per reply of CPIO, all corrigendum have been uploaded then supply the copy of corriqendum.where my seniority has been revised and the date of issuance of corrigendum and uploading of the said corrigendum on website of CGST Commissionerate, Chandigarh be intimated and copy of the same be supplied.

2. Regarding point No 2 incomplete information has been provided as the copy of proceedings of DPC meeting held on 10.05.2019 was sought and neither the complete DPC proceedings i.e. copy of note sheet, details of vacant roster points (category wise), reasons of arisen of regular vacancies, findings of DPC i.e. fit/ unfit/ sealed cover details, correspondence pages of the concerned file nor the APAR gradings of inspectors who have been promoted as superintendents and are in select panel has been provided. It is requested to supply complete information.

3. Regarding point No 3 again incomplete information has been provided as neither the copy of instructions and orders issued by board office or DOPT has been supplied. However reference of DOPT OM dated 15.06.2018 and Board's directions dated 04.07.2018 has been given in the copy of minutes supplied by

Page No.2 of 5

File NO.TECH-RTIOAPLl22/2019-HQ-GST -CHD

your office. As such, it is once again requested to supply all the related instructions, OM of DOPT completely.

4. Regarding point no 4 incomplete information has been provided as information sought under this point was to supply copy of instructions/guidelines under which previous dpcs held for promotion of inspector to the grade of superintendent whereunder good gradings in the acr/apar was benchmark. No such instruction has been supplied. However reterencte of dop&t om no. 35034/7/97-estt (d) dated 08.02.2002 has been given in the dpc minutes please supply the copy of instruction where the benchmark for promotion is good and whetehr om dated 08.02.2002 has been quashed. In the reply to point no. 4 reference of changed bench mark has been given the copy of the same may also be supplied please.

3. COMMENTS OF THE CPIO: The CPIO vide his letter CNo. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTII Ashwani/60/19/302 dated 02.07.2019 offered the following comments

1. The sought information is available on the website of CGST Comm'te, Chandigarh.

2. The copy of relevant proceeding is being sent through e-mail. The information related to the APAR grading does not pertain to this office and are being maintained by CAO (CCU), Chandigarh Zone and RTI application was initially received from CCU office itself.

3 & 4. The copy of relevant OM is also being sent through e-mail.

4. DISCU~SION AND FINDINGS:

4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and documents available on record. I find thatthe issue before me for determination in this appeal is Whether CPIO in reply to RTI application has supplied incomplete information.

4.2 In order to arrive at the decision, Tneed to take up the point-wise reply given by the CPIO in respect of the information sought for by the appellant in his RTI application viz. a viz. the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant.

4.2.1 In respect of point no. 1 of RTI application, the appellant had asked for the seniority list of Inspectors as on 01.01.2019 issued by the office of the Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Chandigarh along-with its corrigendum, if any. The CPIO in hi~ reply to RTI application as well as in his comments to the RTI appeal has stated that the information is available on website of CGST Commissionerate Chandigarh. Whereas, the appellant has contested that seniority list as on 01.01.2019 only is available on the website so quoted and no corrigendum to the seniority list is available as has been stated by the CPIO. With reference to the above, I find that the CPIO has not clarified whether only updated seniority list of Inspectors as on 01.01.2019, as issued vide letter dated 07.05.2019, by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Commissionerate, Chandigarh is available on the official website of the CGST, Chandigarh or other corrigendum thereto is also available on the website. Accordingly,

Page NO.3 of 5

File No.TECH-RTIOAPLl22/2019-HQ-GST-CHD

the CPIO is hereby directed to supply the information called for by the appellant, specifically mentioning therein as to whether any corrigendum to the letter dated 07.05.2019 has been issued or not. In case the answer to the same is in affirmative, the CPIO shall supply the copy of the same to the appellant.

4.2.2 As regards the information asked for in point no. 2 of the RTI application, I find that the CPIO has supplied copies of the 'Minutes of Meeting of DPC' whereas the appellant had sought for the complete proceedings of the subject DPC.

I observe that the basic objective of the Right to Information Act is to provide an opportunity to the citizens to have free and unrestricted flow of information. They can ask for the information/documents held by a public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. I find that at the stage of appeal when comments were called for from the CPIO in respect of the grounds of appeal, the CPIO vide letter CNo. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTI/ Ashwani/60/19/302 dated 02.07.2019 followed by email message dated 02.07.2019, supplied the soft copies of the complete DPC proceedings, (except information relating to APAR gradings). I observe that as the CPIO is desirous of supplying the requisite information to the appellant, I hereby direct the CPIO to supply the requisite information, as available with him, directly to the appellant without any further delay.

4.2.3 As regards the information relating to APAR gradings, the CPIO has further commented that the information relating to the APAR gradings does not pertain to him and the same are being maintained by CAO (CCV), Chandigarh Zone and that the RTI application was initially received from CCV office itself.

In this regard, I observe that Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 mandates that if any information is held by another public authority, the CPIO shall transfer application in full or part to the other public authority who is holding that information.

For better appreciation, section 6(]) of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

"6(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, -

(/) which is held by another public authority; or (if) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,

the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:

Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. "

The original RTI application was filed by the appellant thorough online portal, . which was marked to the CPIO, CGST & C.Ex. Chandigarh, by the Nodal Officer, CGST

Page No.4 of 5

~ .. ----

File No.TECH-RTIOAPLl22/2019-HQ-GST -CHD

Chandigarh Zone for processing of the same. Thus, the CPIO, CGST & C.Ex. Chandigarh was at liberty to supply the complete information directly to the appellant within the due time frame provided under the RTI Act and in case the requisite information was not available with the CPIO, the CPIO was duty bound under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, to transfer the RTI application or the relevant part of it to another Public Authority, in cases where the information is more closely connected to the function of some other Authority. Accordingly, the CPIO is hereby directed to transfer the said part of RTI application to the concerned public authority.

4.2.4 As regards the information asked for in Point NO.3 & 4 of the RTI application, the CPIO is desirous of supplying the copy of relevant OMs. I hereby direct the CPIO to supply the requisite information, as available with him, directly to the appellant without any further delay.


(KUMAR GAUI3AV DHAWAN) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER -CUM- APPELLATE AUTHORITY

REGD.A.D. Sh. - . .., ... : .:: r : e

New Sunny Encleve. Near Gopal Sweets, Sector 125, Mohali, Punjab

~):/ The Assistant Commissioner-cum-CPIO, GST & CX Commissionerate, Chandigarh .

._.Y"J Guard File - ~\-1'') \-v'l'~ Superintendent (Adjudication)

Page No.5 of 5

I

File No.TECH-RTIOAPLl14/2019-HQ-GST-CHD q 6~£J r:kf- ?- Jry ( , ~

<P1<.('I('i<.( 3-Jl1{~~~~, .:>

OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY

vll Q B t'l 3ffi W<r ~ ~l(Kfl 3i I <j CfCiI (>l zr, ~ GST & CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHANDIGARH

m.3,R fci)f(::SJI., ~~-19, ~-17-m ~ C.R. BUILDING, PLOT No. -19, SECTOR-17IC, CHANDIGARH

CNo. TECH-RTIOAPLl14/2019-HQ-GST-CHD

Order- in-Appeal No. 06/RTII APPLICHD/2019- 20

(i) The appellant, if aggrieved, by this order may prefer an appeal to the Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Coma Palace, New Delhi - 110066

(ii) An appeal should be filed within 90 days from the receipt of this order.


1.1 Smt" ~, Spangle Condos Society, Dhkoli, Zirakpur (the Appellant' in short) had filed an online application on 16.05.2019 under the RTI Act, 2005 ('Act' in short) with the Office of the Chief Commissioner of GST, Chandigarh Zone for supply of following information:- .

"1. Certified copies of APAR Grading for the Year 2011-12 to 2017-18 in respect of Sona 80ggo, Inspector. 2. Certified copies of Minutes/Proceedings of DPC Meeting held in respect of promotion of Inspector to Grade of Superintendent for the panel year 2017-18, 2018 and 2019 along with APAR Gradings of the Officers who have been promoted. 3. Certified copies of Minutes/Proceedings of DPC meeting held in respect of Promotion of Superintendentt Adhoc). to the Superintendent Group B on regular basis for the panel year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 alongwith APAR gradings of the officers who have been promoted vide which establishment order number 60/2018 dated 31.12.2018 has been issued' 4. Certified copies of Minutes/Proceedings of DPC meeting held in respect of Promotion of STA to the Grade of Inspector alongwith APAR gradings of the Officers who have been promoted vide which establishment order dated 04.05.2017 has been issued. /I

1.2 The RTI application of the applicant was transferred to the CPIO, Chandigarh, by the Nodal Officer, CGST Chcndiqcrh Zone, only with respect to the information relating to Points No. 2 to 4 of the said application.

1.3 The CPIO, CGST, Chandigarh, in his reply to the RTI Application dated 16.05.2019, vide letter C.No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/Chd/RTI/Sona/37/19 dated 06.06.2019 and email message dated 06.06.2019, supplied the pointwise information as under: -

Page No.1 of 4

I

I File No.TECH-RTIOAPLl14/2019-HQ-GST -CHD

I 1. Information pertains to CCU (CZ), Chandigarh, 2,3&4. The copy of relevant Minutes of DPC are enclosed.


Aggrieved with the reply dated 06.06.2019 of the CPIO, the appellant has filed an appeal dated 12.06.2019 under the Act on the following grounds:-

• Regarding point no 2 incomplete information has been provided, it is requested that neither the complete DPC proceedings i.e. copy of note sheet, details of vacant roster points (category wise), reasons of arisen of regular vacancies, findings of DPC i.e. fit/ unfit/ sealed cover details, correspondence pages of the concerned file nor the APAR gradings of inspectors who have been promoted as superintendents and are in select panel has been provided. It is requested to supply all the requisite information i.e. APAR gradings of all the 107 Inspectors of select panel as well as other requisite information asked.

• Regarding point no 3 again incomplete information has been provided, it is requested that APAR gradings of superintendent (ad hoc) who have been regularized as superintendent Group B for the panel year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16 and 2016-17 vide establishment order number 60/2018 dated 31.10.2018 has not been provided. it is requested to supply requisite information i.e. APAR gradings of all the 293 officers (superintendent ad hoc) of select panel.

• Regarding point no 4 again incomplete information has been provided, it is requested that APAR gradings of STA/Stenographers who have been promoted to the grade of inspector (32 officers) by the DPC held on 28.04.2017 has not been provided. It is requested to supply requisite information i.e. APAR gradings of all the 32 ST A/Stenographers of select panel.

• In the reply on point no 2 reference of DOPT OM dated 15.06.2018, Boards directions dated 04~~7.2018 and OM dated 28.09.2016 where-under bench mark has been changed from good to very good in case of promotions has been given, the copies of the same may be supplied. .


The RTI appeal dated 12.06.2019, was forwarded to the CPIO, CGST, Chandigarh to offer his comments. The CPIO in response to the appeal dated 12.06.2019, have supplied the point-wise comments, as follows: -

1. The copy of relevant proceeding is being sent through mail. The information related to the APAR grading does not pertain to this office and RTI application was initially received from CCU office itself.

2. The information related to the APAR grading does not pertain to this office and RTI application was initially received from CCU office itself.

3. The information related to the APAR grading does not pertain to this office and RTI application was initially received from CCU office itself.

Page No.2 of 4

,. I

File NO.TECH-RTIOAPLl14/2019-HQ-GST -CHD

4. The copy of relevant OM is also being sent through e-mail."

4. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and documents available on record. I find that the issue before me for determination in this appeal is Whether CPIO in reply to RTI application has supplied incomplete information.

4.2 In order to arrive at the decision, I need to take up the reply given' by the CPIO in respect of the information sought for by·the appellant in her RTI application viz. a viz. the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. I find that the information sought for by the appellant initially can be classified into two parts, i.e. (i) Certified copies of Minutes/Proceedings of various DPC Meetings and (it) APAR Gradings of officers who have been promoted therein. I shall now proceed to deal with both the parts of the information one by one: - 4.2.1 On going through the reply given by the CPIO in response to the RTI application, I find that the CPIO has only supplied the copies of minutes of the relevant DPC meetings, and no other information has been supplied by him.

I observe that the basic objective of the Right to Information Act is to provide an opportunity to the citizens to have free and unrestricted flow of information. They can ask for the information/documents held by a public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. I find that at the stage of appeal when comments were called for from the CPIO in respect of the grounds of appeal, the CPIO vide letter C.No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTI/Sona/37/ 19/301 dated 02.07.2019 followed by email message dated 02.07.2019, supplied the soft copies of the complete DPC proceedings including the copies of the relevant OMs, which clearly establish the fact that the information was held by the CPIO which he has failed to supply to the appellant against her RTI application. However, I observe that as the CPIO is desirous of supplying the requisite information to the appellant relating to the first part of the RTI application, I hereby direct the CPIO to supply the requisite information directly to the appellant without any further delcy,

4.2.2 As regards the information relating to the second part, i.e. regarding the non supply of APAR gradings of the various promoted officers, I find that the reply of the CPIO was silent on this aspect and no such information was supplied to the appellant in response to her RTI application.

Accordingly, comments have been called for from the CPIO on the issue. The CPIO vide his letter dated 02.07.2019 (supra), has submitted that the information relating to the APAR gradings does not pertain to him and the same are being maintained by CAO (CCU), Chandigarh Zone and that the RTI application was initially received from CCU office itself.

In this regard, I observe that Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 mandates that if any information is held by another public authority, the CPIO shall transfer application in full or part to the other public authority who is holding that information.

For better appreciation, section 6(3) of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

Page No.3 of 4


"6(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, -

(I) which is held by another public authority: or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,

the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:

Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in rio case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. "

The original RTI application was filed by the appellant thorough online portal, which was marked to the CPIO, CGST & C.Ex. Chandigarh, by the Nodal Officer, CGST Chandigarh Zone for processing of the same. Thus, the CPIO, CGST & C.Ex. Chandigarh was at liberty to supply the complete information directly to the appellant within the due time frame provided under the RTI Act and in case the requisite information was not available with the CPIO, the CPIO was duty bound under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, to transfer the RTI application or the relevant part of it to another Public Authority, in cases where the information is more closely connected to the function of some other Authority. Accordingly, the ePIO is hereby directed to transfer the said part of RTI application to the concerned public authority.


(KUMAR GAURAV DHA WAN) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER -CUM- APPELLATE AUTHORITY

REGD,A,D, Smt Spangle Condos Society, Dhkoli, Zirakpur

Copy tor- ~:~/ The Assistant Commissioner-cum-CPIO, GST & CX commissioqr te, Chandigarh .

._YJ Guard File.

o~\0'\ \~\q Superintendent (Adjudication)

Page No.4 of 4

CflI4IC'1'Q .w:R" ~~ 3ic7J~'Q~, ~ OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY

vfl Q fl tI 3tR ~ ~ ~f(YCfi 3i I 'Q CfCi I C'I 'Q, oJ g) d I a; ~ ~ . GST & CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHANDIGARH

~.31R Rlf8:Sdl,"CC'ITc~ -19, ~-17-~ ~ C.R. BUILDING, PLOT No. -19, SECTOR-17IC, CHANDIGARH

Ph: 0172- 2700690 email: commissionerad·[email protected]

~~: Tech-RTIOAPL/13/2019-HQ-GST-CHD C\to~~ c:nfug: .07.2019

R?\i\ \~ Order-in-Appeal No.05/RTII APPUCHD/2b19-20

(i) The appellant, if aggrieved, by this order may prefer an appeal to the Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing,. August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi - 110066


1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 1.1 Sh. _ ••• z •• -~-.::. ::-_"";-- ., Mohali, Punjab ('the Appellant' in short) had filed an application on 22.04.2019 under the RTI Act, 2005 ('Act' in short) with the Central Public Information Officer, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh for supply of following information:-

"Please provide copies ot instructions on maintenance of roster, which provde for . taking of regular vacancy against roster point of Assistant Commissioner/Superintendent/Inspector who have been promoted on adhoc basis during the period 2013 onwards."

1.2 The CPIO in his reply issued vide letter C. No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTI/Jitender/51119 dated 21.05.2019 supplied the copies of DOPT OM 36012/2/96-Esttt(Res) dated 02.07.1997 and AB 14017/2/1997-Estt.(RR) dated 19.01.2017 and stated that instructions regarding rosters are contained in these OMs.


Aggrieved with the reply dated 21.05.2019 of the CPIO, the appellant has filed an appeal da.ted 06.06.2019 under the Act on the following grounds:-

2.1. The information sought for under the Act is required to be supplied within 30 days of the receipt of the application seeking such information in terms of sub <:ortinn (1'\ nf ,C:;ortinn 7 nf tho Art Tt ic: c:oon thnt tho, nnnlicnnt hod souoht

information vide application dated 22.04.2019 and the period for supplying the information expired on 21.05.2019 and thus the information is deemed to have been refused as provided in Section 7(2) of the Act.

2.2 Photocopies of the documents supplied reveals that the information 1 documents provided had nothing to do with the information sought by me. It therefore, appears that there has been deliberate attempt on the part of CPIO to provide wrong information.

2.3 Further, Section 20 of the Act provides for penal action by the appropriate authority for not providing the requisite information within period of 30 days and also for deliberately providing wrong information.


3.1 The CPIO vide his letter C.No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTII Jitender/51/19/300 dated 28.06.2019 offered his comments to the RTI appeal, wherein he stated that instructions regarding maintenance of rosters are contoined in DoPT OM 36012/2/96- Estt.(Res) dated 02.07.1997 and AB.14017/2/1997-Estt.(RR) dated 19.01.2007 and to the best of their knowledge there are no other instructions available, apart from the above, that provides for taking of regular vacancy against roster points o-f Assistant Commissioner 1 Superintendent/Inspector who have been promoted on adhoc basis during the period 2013 onwards. Regarding delay in supplying the information to the applicant within the stipulated time limit of 30 days, the CPIO has intimated that the subject RTI was dealt with at C:, time when concerned Inspector was promoted to the grade of Superintendent and was transferred and relieved to other Commissionerate without handing over charge or RTI seat to any other officer and therefore the reply to the applicant could not be supplied within stipulated time limit.


4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and documents available on record. The appellant in the grounds of appeal has contended that the desired information has been supplied to him and reply to his RTI has been given after elapsing of mandated period of 30 days as provided under Section 7 of the Act. Hence, the following two points are before me for determination in this appeal:

(i) Whether the CPIO has supplied the correct information as asked for by the appellant in his RTI application?

(ii) Whether the information has been supplied within the time limit prescribed under RTI Act?

~ - _-

4.2 In order to arrive at the decision, I need to take up the reply given by the CPIO in respect of the information sought for by the appellant in his RTI application viz. a viz. the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant: -

4.2.1 While replying to the original RTI Application, the CPIO in his letter dated 21.05.2019 supplied the copies of DoPT OM 36012/2/96-Estt.(Res) dated 02.07.1997 and AB.14017/2/1997-Estt.(RR) dated 19.01.2007. Whereas on the other hand, the appellant have contended that photocopies of the documents supplied by CPIO reveals that the information / documents provided had nothing to do with the information sought by the appellant.

With reference to the above, I have perused the original RTI Application, reply thereto as submitted by the CPIO as well as the comments offered by CPIO with respect to the instant Appeal filed by the appellant. I find that the appellant had not asked for supply of specific OM I information / instructions from the CPIO, rather, the information sought for was that 'copy of relevant instructions be supplied. The CPIO, as per his subjective satisfaction has supplied the copies of the relevant instructions and has further categorically informed that no further instructions exist in this regard. Thus, the CPIO has already supplied the information as asked for by the appellant. It cannot be said that wrong information has been supplied by the CPIO, as the appellant has not pointed out as to how the information supplied is irrelevant. It has also not been mentioned I specified as to what other OMs I instructions are relevant in this regard and not supplied by the CPIO. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the information supplied by the CPIO to the appellant.

4.2.2 As regards the delay in supply of information to the appellant, I find that in response to the RTI application dated 22.04.2019, reply was given by the CPIO vide letter C. No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CKD/RTII Jitender/51/19 dated 21.05.2019, which was actually delivered to the applicant on 29.05.2019. On the perusal of the copy of reply dated 21.05.2019 of the CPIO, I find that there is no dispatch number mentioned on the said letter and the same has been delivered on 29.05.2019, by hand.

In this regard, I observe that the basic objective of the Right to Information Act is to provide an opportunity to the citizens to have free and unrestricted flow of information r They can ask for the information/documents held by a public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.

In response to the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant, the CPIO vide his letter C.No. IV(16)HQ/Tech/CHD/RTI/Jitender/51/19/300 dated 28.06.2019 has intimated that the subject RTI was dealt with at a time when concerned Inspector was promoted to the grade of Superintendent and was transferred and relieved to other Commissionerate without handing over charge of RTI seat to any other officer and therefore the reply to the applicant could not be supplied within stipulated time limit.

- - -

The explanation tendered by the CPIO is not plausible and he is strongly advised to be more careful in future and strictly adhere to the time limit as prescribed under Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005, in supplying the requisite information under the RTI Act, 2005.

The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly disposed off in the above terms.

<: -> . (KUMAR GAU~AV DHAWAN)

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER -CUM- APPELLATE AUTHORITY

REGD.A.D. .,

I

I

Sh. ,. ,.;. ..•.. ' .-; r ' i":' .11

-, I" Punjab Copy to:-

(i) __;T"he Assistant Commissioner-cum-CPIO, GST & CX Commissionerate, Chandigarh. ~ Guard File. \2)

~O~\DI \-yC'~ Superintendent (Adjudication)

..

-----_. -- -_._-- - .

File No.TECH-RTIOAPLl15/2019-HQ-GST-CHD / 1 (1) S /~

Chi <Q~ (>I <Q .3-l1=R ~ ~ 3i 4"1 (>l) <Q ~, .:>

OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY vl1 Q {i t'I 3tR ~ ~ ~RKfl 3i I <Q Cf(i I (>I <Q, oJ 51 d I cp

.:> .:> GST & CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHANDIGARH

"ffr . .3-lR. ~~dl, ~~ -19, ~-17-"ffr ii51Jlcp C.R. BUILDING, PLOT No. -19, SECTOR-17IC, CHANDIGARH

Ph: 0172- 2700690

~: '2- \ .06.2019

Order-in-Appeal No.O:3 IRTI/APPLICHD/2019-20

(i) The appellant, if aggrieved, by this order may prefer an appeal to the Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Coma Palace, New Delhi - 110066


1 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 1.1 Sh. ' " ". -, -. ~ ,0: . , Chhoti Marai, Hajipur, Bihar - 844101 ('the Appellant' in short) had filed an application on 17.04.2019 under the RTIAct, 2005 (Act' in short) with the Central Public Information Officer, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh for supply of following information:-

"Following information in respect of CBEC letter FNo.C-1801211912012-AdIIB dated 03.08.2017 regarding implementation of CA T, Chandigarh bench order dated 03.08.2012 in O.A. 3381PB12012: -

a) Whether CA T, Chandigarh bench order dated 03.08.2012 in OA. 3381PBI2012 has been fully implemented in Central Excise, Chandigarh Zone in respect of all petitioners and Non-petitioners.

b) If yes, provide a copy of order of fixation seniority of petitioners after implementation CA T Chandigarh Order 3381PB12012.

c) Whether actual date of joining considered, after implementation CA T Chandigarh Order 3381PBI2012 and count his seniority from date of joining.

d) If yes, provide actual joining in the department and date of transfer to Chandigarh Zone on ICT

e) Whether DPC has been reviewed for granted promotion benefit.

f) If yes, provide a copy of reviewed DPC.

g) Provide copy of all correspondence letters between Central Excise, Chandigarh Zone and Board regarding implementation of CA T, Chandigarh bench order dated 03.08.2012 in OA. 3381PB12012. /I

1.2 The appellant has alleged that the CPIO did not provide any information to the

r----=- - - - - File No.TECH-RTIOAPLl15/2019-HQ-GST-CHD

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

Being aggrieved from the fact of non-receipt of the information from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the appellant has filed an appeal on the ground that he has not received the reply till date.


The matter was enquired into from the concerned CPIO and it has been informed that the information in respect of the RTI application dated 17.04.2019, has already been supplied to the appellant by the CPIO vide his letter C.No. IV(16 )HQ/RTI/Rajeev 153/19/9448 dated 29.05.2019.


I have gone through the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and documents avai lable on record. The appellant in the grounds of appeal has contended that no response has been received from the CPIO within the time limit and that the reply has not been received till the date of filing of the instant appeal.

In this regards, I observe that the basic objective of the Right to Information Act is to provide an opportunity to the citizens to have free and unrestricted flow of information. They can ask for the information/documents held by a public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. Since the CPIO has failed to supply the requisite information without assigning any reason for such failure, it shall be deemed that the information has been denied by the CPIO.

However, on the perusal of the reply from CPIO, it has been gathered that the requisite information has since been supplied to the appellant by the CPIO vide his letter C.No. IV(16)HQ/RTI/Rajeev/53/19/9448 dated 29.05.2019. Accordingly, no further action is warranted in the matter.

The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly disposed off in the above terms. The CPIO is hereby advised to strictly adhere to the time limit as prescribed under Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005, in supplying the requisite information under the RTI Act, 2005.

(KUMAR GAURAV DHAWAN) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER -CUM- APPELLATE AUTHORITY

REGD.A.D. Sh., ~. ~ '.

_ •. _::. 1 _. "_- : . .:: .". - Chhoti Marai, Hajipur, Bihar - 844101.

~""-' . --- _.- --- .. ~--'


jopy to:- The Assistant Commissioner-cum-CPIO, GST & CX Commissionerate, Chandigarh.

~ Guard File. ~ ~'V\\ ~ \.,,9\ ~

Superintendent (Adjudication)

Documents

I '161 g - cexchd1.gov.incexchd1.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI APPEAL ORDERS 2019-20.pdf · The CPIO vide his reply issued vide letter C No.IV(16)HQ/Tech/ChdL rabhash/81/19/ dated