RTI reply: CIC pulls up PCB for being ‘casual’

Asseem Shaikh | TNN

Pune: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the Pune Cantonment Board (PCB) for deputing a retired employee instead of a serving employee to attend the hearing of a second appeal.

The CIC also expressed its annoyance with PCB chief executive officer and the first appellate authority S K Sardana for not giving their comments on an appeal filed by Ranjeet Solanki, a resident of Bhavani Peth, opposite Poona college.

In its order delivered on June 16, Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra described the attitude of PCB officials as “casual” in dealing with matters under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The appellant Solanki had requested the central public information officer (CPIO), D D Modak, to provide information about the service record of his father Ashok Solanki. He had also sought details about the payments made to the legal heirs after his father’s death in an application dated October 26, 2006.

After the PCB transferred Solanki’s application to the CPIO of the accounts department, the appellant received a reply from the CPIO stating that on verification, no office record existed in his father’s name.

Dissatisfied with the reply, Solanki had preferred a first appeal before the CEO and the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, in its order on January 16, 2007, had held that as per the index register maintained by the board, no file existed in Ashok Solanki’s name. The appellate authority further directed the CPIO to conduct a thorough search of the records and provide information within 15 days.
Solanki preferred a second appeal before the CIC after he received a reply from the CPIO stating that even after a second search no information sought by the appellant was available.

When the appeal came up for hearing before the commission in New Delhi, which was held via video conferencing from the National Informatics Centre here, Solanki brought to the notice of commission that the first appellate authority had not given its comments on the appeal even after the CIC making a communication on October 6, 2008.
Mishra stated: “It is deplorable that the PCB had failed to send its comments on the appeal even after 10 months of being asked to do so. This shows their utter lack of seriousness in matters related to right to information”.
Mishra further observed that “It is also very strange that the public authority deputed a retired employee to appear in the case instead of the current CPIO. Even if the CIC notice had been issued in the name of Smt D D Modak, CPIO and chief accountant, it was not desirable that the public authority should have summoned a retired employee to appear. It was the duty of the current CPIO to appear for the hearing”.

Modak submitted that she had replied to the appellant after the concerned section of the board had informed her that Sonlanki’s service record could not be traced, but she admitted the fact that she had once met him when he was alive.

“In any public authority, information about a former employee can be found by looking at several records like acquaintance roll, leave registers, seniority lists etc. Even if this particular person had passed away, the authorities concerned could have tried to find out about him from one or the other relevant records or documents only if they had tried hard and should not have casually dismissed the request by stating that no record in this name existed,” Mishra’s order stated.

Mishra directed the CPIO to once again search the records and files for finding out if there is any reference of the appellant’s father.

The CIC has sought an explanation from the CPIO.