| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 1161 |
CICOM/A/2018/00144 |
R K SINGH |
14-06-2018 |
please see the file |
 |
| 1162 |
CICOM/A/2018/60075 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
14-06-2018 |
In the appeal, appellant has requested for audio-conferencing over his mobile No.9560901490. Accordingly, the appellant was contacted on 20.06.2018 at 1100 hrs. On Point-1 of the RTI application, appellant has stated during the hearing that copy of the attendance sheet in case File Nos.CIC/NYUKS/C/2017/146410 & CIC/NYUKS/A/2017/144856 supplied to him, CPIO has not attested the same and also suppressed some information. Further, CPIO has not provided point-wise reply. Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO has intimated that he only hide those part of the attendance sheet, which consists personal information and he has given point-wise reply of the RTI.
On perusal of the RTI application and CPIO’s reply and submission made during audio-conference, it is observed that
1. CPIO has provided copy of attendance sheet but not certified.
2. For other points, the CPIO has provided factual and appropriate point-wise information to the appellant.
Direction is given to Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DO to IC(SA) to provide certified copy of attendance sheets as per DoPT OM No.10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015 to the appellant by severing the personal information within 1 week from the date of receipt of the order. |
NA |
| 1163 |
CICOM/A/2018/60074 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
14-06-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1164 |
CICOM/A/2018/00143 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
14-06-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1165 |
CICOM/A/2018/00140 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
14-06-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1166 |
CICOM/A/2018/00141 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
14-06-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1167 |
CICOM/A/2018/60073 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
14-06-2018 |
In the appeal, appellant has stated that as per reply of CPIO, diary No.173942 dated 27.09.2016 was received in the registry of IC(YA) but same is not available in the complaint file, it might have been filed with another file, is misleading because practically it means that the said dak is missing from the registry/misplaced by the registry. This dak is closely related to 3 other daks received on the same date that resulted in initiation of a vigilance enquiry against CIC officials/rehearing of a 2nd appeal. Since the dak received vide diary No.173942 dated 27.09.2016 is missing/misplaced, the other responses of CPIO in relation to aforementioned dak diary number are just to create an illusion that information has been provided.
In view of the above, direction is given to Shri R.P. Grover, CPIO & DO to IC(YA) to search the dak diarized vide Dy.No.173942 dated 27.09.2016 and provide appropriate reply of the information sought to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. |
NA |
| 1168 |
CICOM/A/2018/60071 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
08-06-2018 |
On perusal of the RTI application, reply of the CPIO and appeal, it is observed that information sought on Points 1 & 2 of the RTI application are same and reply furnished by the CPIO is appropriate. As regards information sought on Points 3 & 4 of the RTI application, direction is given to Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, CPIO & DS to Central Registry-I to collect information from all the registries u/s 5(4) and provide a composite reply to the appellant within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the order. |
NA |
| 1169 |
CICOM/A/2018/00138 |
R K SINGH |
06-06-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1170 |
CICOM/A/2018/00139 |
R K SINGH |
06-06-2018 |
please see the file |
|