Original Application for Information
dated 19 Sep 13
SYS/RTI/CGDA/2013 19th
September 2013
To,
(1) CPIO (Audit Wing),
Shri S Murali Krishnan IDAS
Shri S Murali Krishnan IDAS
Senior ACGDA (IT), Office of the CGDA,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi – 110 010
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Sir,
1. Please refer to the Opinion of the Attorney General of India
letter No. MLJ No. AG 16/2013-ADV ‘C’ dated 14.8.2013 and AG DY No. 325/AG/OPIN
dated 14.8.2013 on the subject of Implementation of Supreme Court order dated
4.9.2012 – Rank Pay Case (Major A. K. Dhanapalan Retd - reg and CGDA Note No.
AT/I/1483/RB/X(PC)/V dated 23.5.2013.
2. At Para 34 of the ibid Opinion letter of Ld Attorney
General, states, inter alia: - “The
CGDA has indicated that the minimum for each rank has not been arrived at after
deduction of rank pay. It was in fact a recommendation of 4th CPC….” (Photocopy of referred portion attached
for ready reference)
3. Further, the ibid
opinion letter of the Ld Attorney General states as follows at Para 36, inter alia: - “…..There is no need to revise the minimum, if as stated by the CGDA it
has been fixed on another basis.”
(Photocopy of the referred portion is attached for ready reference).
4. Please
provide information by way of photocopies of documents that the CGDA relied on to
make the above statements to the Ld Attorney General of India as neither any
table nor a recommendation of minimum pay for each rank is in the 4th
Central Pay Commission’s Report, Part I, Chapter 28 – Armed Forces Personnel (Pages
283 to 306, including table at Annexe 28.1 which is an illustration showing the pay in the integrated scale of pay for army
officers of different ranks in reference to Para 28.113 nor is it in Chapter
30 – Fixation of Pay in Proposed Scales (pages 310 to 312)
5. Since Proviso (b) of Rule 7 (1) (A) of CCS (RP) Rules 1986
has been quoted for not increasing the ceiling of the integrated scale of pay,
please provide information by way of a photocopy of the same.
6. Indian Postal Order No. 19F 707618 for Rs 10/- payable to
CGDA at New Delhi is enclosed as application fee. It is requested that the
undersigned may not be requested to visit the offices of CGDA to search for the
information for reasons stated in earlier applications for information.
Yours truly,
Enclosures: as stated above
RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT, 2005
FIRST APPEAL
FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]
I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]
To,
Shri R. K. Karna, IDAS
Jt Controller General of Defence Accounts & First Appellate Authority,
O/o Controller General of Defence Accounts,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
New Delhi – 11001o
Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer, O/o CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi – 110 010 letter No. CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/II/1222 dated 15th October 2013, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
1. Details of appellant
(i) Full Name: Sharad Yeshwant Savur
(ii) Full Address: 141, Jal Vayu Towers,
NGEF Layout, Indira Nagar (PO), Bangalore-560038
(iii) Phone/Cell No: +91 9449676278
(iv) Email ID: sysavur@gmail.com
2. Details of CPIO: -
(i) Name/Designation: Shri S. Murali Krishnan IDAS,
(i) Name/Designation: Shri S. Murali Krishnan IDAS,
Senior Dy CGDA (IT) & CPIO
(ii) Full Address: O/o
CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi - 110010
(iii) Name of Public
Authority: O/o Controller General of Defence Accounts
3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:-
(i) Date of Application: 19.09.2013
3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:-
(i) Date of Application: 19.09.2013
(ii) Mailed on: 20.09.2013
(iii) By Speed Post No. EK420231976IN
(iv) Date of receipt by
CPIO: Not indicated; presumed to be 23
Sep 13 as per India Post tracking for Speed Post article mentioned at (iii)
above.
4. Particulars of payment of filing fee: - Paid
Rs.10/- by IPO No. 19F 707618 /-.
5. Details of information sought (Annexure ‘A-1’): -
“2. At Para 34 of the ibid Opinion letter of Ld
Attorney General, states, inter alia: - “The
CGDA has indicated that the minimum for each rank has not been arrived at after
deduction of rank pay. It was in fact a recommendation of 4th CPC….”
3. Further, the ibid opinion letter of the Ld Attorney General states as
follows at Para 36, inter alia: - “…..There is no need to revise the minimum,
if as stated by the CGDA it has been fixed on another basis.” (Photocopy of
the referred portion is attached for ready reference).
4. Please provide information by way of
photocopies of documents that the CGDA relied on to make the above statements
to the Ld Attorney General of India as neither any table nor a recommendation
of minimum pay for each rank is in the 4th Central Pay Commission’s
Report, Part I, Chapter 28 – Armed Forces Personnel (Pages 283 to 306,
including table at Annexe 28.1 which is an illustration
showing the pay in the integrated scale of pay for army officers of different
ranks in reference to Para 28.113 nor is it in Chapter 30 – Fixation of Pay
in Proposed Scales (pages 310 to 312)
5. Since Proviso (b) of
Rule 7 (1) (A) of CCS (RP) Rules 1986 has been quoted for not increasing the
ceiling of the integrated scale of pay, please provide information by way of a
photocopy of the same.”
6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO (Annexure ‘B’): -
(i) Letter reference No: No. CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/II/1222
(i) Letter reference No: No. CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/II/1222
(ii) Date of CPIO’s Decision: 15 Oct 13
(iii) Date of receipt of decision by the
appellant: 22 Oct 13
7. Brief facts of the case: -
7. Brief facts of the case: -
7.1. The Opinion of the Attorney General of India letter No. MLJ No.
AG 16/2013-ADV ‘C’ dated 14.8.2013 and AG DY No. 325/AG/OPIN dated 14.8.2013 on
the subject of Implementation of Supreme Court order dated 4.9.2012 – Rank Pay
Case (Major A. K. Dhanapalan Retd - reg and CGDA Note No. AT/I/1483/RB/X(PC)/V
dated 23.5.2013 states at Para 34, inter
alia: - “The CGDA has indicated that the minimum for each rank has not been
arrived at after deduction of rank pay. It was in fact a recommendation of 4th
CPC….”
7.3. Further, the ibid opinion letter of the Ld Attorney General
states as follows at Para 36, inter alia:
- “…..There
is no need to revise the minimum, if as stated by the CGDA it has been fixed on
another basis.”
8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal: -
8.1. Reasons for this appeal: - CPIO has not provided either any
information related to my request which in terms of the RTI Act 2005 should be
construed as a refusal
8.2.
Grounds for this Appeal:
(A) Nowhere in reply, which is the subject
of this appeal, has this applicant been provided the specific information
sought i.e the document that O/o CGDA
has relied on to state ‘another
basis for a minimum pay for each ranks’ that Ld Attorney General refers
to is. This is of particular relevance because the Ld Attorney General has
opined that the minimum of pay for each rank does not to be revised because of
O/o CGDA’s comment.
(B) However, as per
GoI/MoD Resolution 9E dated 18 Mar 1987, the integrated pay scale recommended
by the 4th CPC was changed from Rs 2300-100-4200-EB-100-5000 (Para
28.12 of ibid Report) spread over 28 years (Para 28.14 of the ibid Reports
refers) to Rs 2300-100-3900-150-4200-EB-150-5100 (Para 1 of ibid Resolution
refers) thereby reducing the span of the integrated pay scale to less than 28
years. This table at Annex 28.1 to Para 28.113 does not support the table
provided in Para 6 (a) (ii) of SAI No. 1/S/87.
(C) Moreover, Sr AO
(AT-I), custodian of the information sought, has provided a photocopy though this applicant did not ask for of photocopy
of Annexe 28.1 to Para 28.113 of the Report of the 4th CPC as
the information. It is not the information on the basis on which O/o CGDA made
the statement to the Ld Attorney General becomes more relevant.
(D) Further, Para 3 of No. Arch/D/158747, Office of The CDA (O), Golibar
Maidan, Pune -411 001, Dated: 26/4/07 (Annexure
‘C’) states as follows: -
“As regards the minimum pay of the integrated scale
for Major Rs 3400/-, your attention is invited to Para 6 (a) (ii) of the SAI
1/S/87 (copy enclosed), for grant of one increment for every three increments
in the existing scale, it is stated that you were Capt as on 1.1.86 and drawing
pay @ Rs 3200/- p.m. + Rank pay of Rs 200/-, Subsequent on your promotion as A/Major you were paid pay @ Rs 3800/-
plus rank pay of Rs 600/-……..”
(E) In other words,
there is no minimum pay for each rank as stated by O/o CGDA to the Ld Attorney
General (Annexure ‘D’).
(F) The Sr AO (AT-I)
has stated “This office has not furnished any statement/comments directly to Ld
Attorney General of India….” Since Sr AO (AT-I) is the custodian of the
information, it is but right for this applicant/appellant to seek the information
in his custody through the CPIO. Whether
the information sought was routed by Sr AO (AT-I) through the hierarchy of the
O/o CGDA, then MoD (Def/Fin) and to MoD or in any other manner is not the
subject of the RTI request.
(G) The channel of
communication between O/o CGDA and any other Dept is not material to the
application/appeal. Therefore the conclusion that the Sr A.O (AT-I) arrives at
is without basis and tantamount to denial of information without stating
reasons under relevant Sections of the RTI Act 2005.
(H) In turn, the CPIO,
O/o CGDA has not provided information by way of a photocopied document
supporting the contention of the O/o CGDA of the “another basis” mentioned by the Ld Attorney General in his ibid
Opinion dated 03 Sep 13.
9. Any other information in support of
appeal:
Photocopy
of No. Arch/D/158747, Office of The CDA (O), Golibar Maidan, Pune -411 001,
Dated: 26/4/07.
10. Prayer/relief sought for: - CPIO to provide me with copies of the
information applied on payment as provided in the RTI Act 2005 i.e. the
document supporting the “another basis” for minimum pay for each rank which O/o
CGDA has stated to the Ld Attorney General in its Note No. AT/I/1483/RB/X
(PC)/V dated 23 May 13.
11. Grounds for prayer/relief sought
for: - CPIO
(Pay/Services) has not provided the information thereby placing hurdles in my
quest for perceived/factual deficiencies.
12. Personal Presence at hearing: - No
13. Enclosures: - Photocopies/True typed copy of
13. Enclosures: - Photocopies/True typed copy of
(i) Original RTI application with its
enclosures: - Annexure A-1
(ii)
Postal proof of mailing: - Annexure A-2
(iii)
Acknowledgement of CPIO: - Not received
(iv)
Decision letter of CPIO: - Annexure B
(v) O/o PCDA (O)’s
Reply to RTI: Annexure
C
(vi) Paras 32 to 36 -
Opinion of Ld Attorney General Annexure
D
14. Declaration:
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: Bangalore Date: 23rd October 2013 Signature of appellant
[P.S. Format as per office memorandum dated 09-07-2007 issued by DoPT, Govt. of India.]
[P.S. Format as per office memorandum dated 09-07-2007 issued by DoPT, Govt. of India.]
Encls: as stated
Covering Letter for Complaint Under Section 18
SYS/RTI/MoD/CGDA/Complaint 29
Nov 13
To,
The Registrar,
O/o Chief Information Commissioner
II Floor, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi – 110 066
Subject: Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act 2005
Sir,
Aggrieved by the manner in which
my First Appeal has been treated by Jt CGDA and Appellate Authority, O/o CGDA,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi – 110 010, this complaint under Section 18 of
the RTI Act 2005 is filed for the kind consideration of the O/o Chief
Information Commissioner for an early decision and action as deemed
necessary.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/------------
(S Y Savur)
Encl: Original + one copy with enclosures
Copy without
Annexures to: -
(1) Shri R K
Karna, IDAS, Jt CGDA & Appellate Authority, O/o CGDA, Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, New Delhi – 110 010
(2) Shri S Murali Krishnan, Sr ACGDA (IT) & CPIO,
O/o CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, New Delhi – 110 010
PROOF OF MAILING COPY OF COMPLAINT TO JT CGDA & APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND Sr ACGDA & CPIO,
both from O/o CGDA, New Delhi – 110 010 On 29 Nov 13
RPAD Articles receipts attached
* * * * * * *
Right to Information Act, 2005
Complaint before Central Information
Commission
INDEX OF COMPLAINT
of Mr SHARAD YESHWANT
SAVUR dated 29 Nov 13
|
S No.
|
Particulars
|
Page Sr. No. from/
to
|
|
1
|
Original Complaint
|
|
|
2
|
Chronology chart of RTI application
|
|
|
3
|
Copy of RTI application dated 19 Sep 13 with enclosures
|
|
|
4
|
Copy of proof of mailing RTI application
|
|
|
5
|
Copy of receipt for filing fees and other charges
|
|
|
6
|
Copy of First Appeal dated 23 Oct 13 with enclosures
|
|
|
7
|
Copy of proof of mailing First Appeal
|
|
|
8
|
Postal AD card/Acknowledgement letter received from CPIO
& FAA
|
|
|
9
|
Copy of decision of CPIO
|
|
|
10
|
Copy of decision of FAA
|
|
|
12
|
Other documents in support of Complaint
|
|
Place: Bangalore - 560038
Date: 29 Nov 13
Signature of
complainant
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Complaint before Central Information
Commission
Complaint No. ----------------------- Dated
------------------------
[For office use only]
As I am aggrieved by decisions of
Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority, I hereby file
this complaint under Section 18 for your kind decision.
1. Details of Complainant:
1.1 Full Name: SHARAD YESHWANT SAVUR
1.2. Full Address: 141, JAL VAYU TOWERS,
N
G E F LAYOUT,
INDIRA
NAGAR (PO),
BANGALORE
– 560 038
1.3 Phone/Cell No.: +91 9449676278
1.4 Email ID: sysavur@gmail.com
2. Details of Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO):
2.1. Name/Designation: Shri S Murali Krishnan.
Sr ACGDA (IT)
2.2. Full Address: O/0 CGDA,
Ulan
Batar Road, Palam, NEW DELHI – 110 010
2.3. Name of Public Authority: O/0
CGDA
3. Details of First Appellate Authority
[FAA]:
3.1. Name/Designation of the FAA:
SHRI R K Karna, IDAS
Jt
CGDA & Appellate Authority
3.2. Full Address of FAA: O/o CGDA,
Ulan
Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi – 110010
4.1. To CPIO: SYS/RTI/CGDA/2013 dated 19 Sep 13 &
mailed on: 20 Sep 13
4.2 To FAA: Ref No. NIL &
mailed on: 23 Oct 13
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1. Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision: No. CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/II/1222 dated 15 Oct 13
5.2. Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision: No.
CPIO/AT/2013/HQ/II/1251 dated 13 Nov 13
5.3. Date/s of personal hearing by FAA: NOT APPLICABLE
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant
from:
6.1. CPIO: 22
Oct 13
6.2. FAA: 26
Nov 13 by email
7. Details of information sought: -
(photocopy placed as Annexure ‘A’)
The Opinion of the Attorney
General of India letter No. MLJ No. AG 16/2013-ADV ‘C’ dated 14.8.2013 and AG
DY No. 325/AG/OPIN dated 14.8.2013 on the subject of Implementation of Supreme
Court order dated 4.9.2012 – Rank Pay Case (Major A. K. Dhanapalan Retd - reg
and CGDA Note No. AT/I/1483/RB/X(PC)/V dated 23.5.2013 stated at
……Para 34 ……inter alia: - “The CGDA has indicated that the minimum
for each rank has not been arrived at after deduction of rank pay. It was in
fact a recommendation of 4th CPC….”
3. Further,
the ibid opinion letter of the Ld Attorney General stated at Para 36, inter
alia “…..There is no need to revise the
minimum, if as stated by the CGDA it has been fixed on another basis.”
(Photocopy of the referred portion is attached for ready reference).
4 Please
provide information by way of photocopies of documents that the CGDA relied on
to make the above statements to the Ld Attorney General of India as neither any
table nor a recommendation of minimum pay for each rank is in the 4th
Central Pay Commission’s Report, Part I, Chapter 28 – Armed Forces Personnel
(Pages 283 to 306, including table at Annexe 28.1 which is an illustration showing the pay in the
integrated scale of pay for army officers of different ranks in reference to
Para 28.113 nor is it in Chapter 30 – Fixation of Pay in Proposed Scales
(pages 310 to 312)
5. Since
Proviso (b) of Rule 7 (1) (A) of CCS (RP) Rules 1986 has been quoted for not
increasing the ceiling of the integrated scale of pay, please provide
information by way of a photocopy of the same”…..
8.
Brief facts of the case
(A) The Learned Attorney General for India, conveyed his
interpretation of the referred matter in Opinion of the Attorney General of
India letter No. MLJ No. AG 16/2013-ADV ‘C’ dated 14.8.2013 and AG DY No.
325/AG/OPIN dated 14.8.2013 on the subject of Implementation of Supreme Court
order dated 4.9.2012 – Rank Pay Case (Major A. K. Dhanapalan Retd - reg and
CGDA Note No. AT/I/1483/RB/X(PC)/V dated 23.5.2013 based on information
provided vide
(i) CGDA Note No. AT/I/1483/RB/X(PC)/V
dated 23.5.2013,
(ii) Agreed to by Ministry of Finance, Deptt
of Expenditure, E.III-A Branch, vide ID Note No. 187654/E.III-A/2012 dated 05
Jul 13,
In, at Para
34, and Para 36, the Learned Attorney General for India referred to the CGDA
Note No. AT/I/1483/RB/X(PC)/V dated 23.5.2013.
This
applicant/appellant requested for photocopies of the following documents: -
(i) Document based on which the Learned
Attorney General for India conveyed his valued opinion dated 03 Sep 13 at Para
34 and 36, and
(ii) Photocopy
of Rule 7 (1) (A) of CCS (RP) Rules 1986 quoted by the O/o CGDA in its UO Note dated 23 May 13.
(B) In reply to the original application
dated 19 Sep 13, the CPIO conveyed the
vide CPIO//AT/HQ/2013/II/1222 dated 15 Oct 13 (photocopy placed as Annexure ‘B-1’), received by the applicant/appellant on 22 Oct 13, following
decision: - “The Information requested in
your above quoted application dated 19/09/2013 have been ascertained from the
dealing Section being custodian of information on the subject matter and
reply/information received in this regard vide UO Note No. AT/I/1483-Army/X
(PC)/V dated 14/10/2013 is forwarded herewith as desired.”
UO Note No.
AT/I/1483-Army/X (PC)/V dated 14/10/2013 (photocopy placed at Annexure ‘B-2’) provided, in addition
to comments unrelated to the request for information, provided vide Para 4 a
copy of Annexure 28.1. referred in Para 28.113 on 4th CPC and vide
Para 5: A copy of Rule 7 (1) (A) of CCS (RP) Rules, 1986 was enclosed.
In the
original application dated 19 Sep 13, this applicant had informed the CPIO that
the information i.e. the document that the Learned Attorney General for India
based his opinion expressed by him in Para 34 and 36 of his opinion letter
dated 03 Sep 13 was not in 4th CPC’s report at Chapter 28 but a
table was provided at Annex 28.1. to Para 28.113, i.e. this Annex 28.1 was
already in the possession of this applicant.
As the CPIO
did not provide a photocopy of the document relied upon by the Ld Attorney
General for India, this applicant, now appellant, appealed to the Appellate
Authority for a photocopy of the document that was not supplied.
(C) Appellate Authority in Order No
CPIO/AT/2013/HQ/II/1251 dated 13 Nov 13 sent by email on 26 Nov 13 (photocopy
placed at Annexure ‘C’) stated the
following: -
“1. Whereas Shri S Y Savur has filed first
appeal dated 23/10/2013 under the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005
against alleged non-receipt of specific information as requested in his initial
application dated 19/09/2013.
2. Whereas being appellate authority in
this case, the whole case has been gone through. Vide initial application dated
19/09/2013 the appellant has raised two queries at Para 4 & 5 of above
application related with handling of Rank Pay case in this HQrs office. The
above initial application has been responded vide letter dated 15/10/2013. The
appellant is not satisfied with the information furnished on Point 4 and hence
this appeal.
3. And whereas the contention of the
appellant in the appeal is concerned, it is observed that the RTI Act provides
for furnishing the information as defined under Section 2 (f) read with Section
2 (j) of the Act which are available in material form. The RTI Act does not
cast obligation upon on the PIO to examine Rules/Orders and answer queries that
are in the nature of seeking/eliciting clarifications/interpretations of the Rules/Orders.
The requested information as is available with the public authority is to be
provided to the information seeker. This appellant in his application has cited
certain extracts from the UO Note dated 23/05/2013 of this office and has asked
for “photocopies of the documents that the CGDA relied on to make the above
statement.” It is seen from Para 1
of the comments on Issue-2 itself of the above UO Note that relevant documents
based on which the above comment were offered is already quoted therein.
Accordingly, a copy of the Annex 28.1 quoted in the above comments has already
been furnished to the appellant on 15/10/2013 which has been acknowledged by
the appellant in present appeal.
4. This disposes of the
appeal.”
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
9.1. Original applicant/Appellant strongly
objects to the imputation of the FAA
that he has not put two queries but has requested photocopies of two
documents.
9.2. Original applicant/appellant strongly
refutes, based on the matter in the original application dated 19 Sep 13 and
the Appeal dated 23 Oct 13 that he has sought or elicited any clarification or
interpretation on any Rule/Order as misrepresented by the FAA.
9.3. Original applicant/appellant states
categorically, with truth and facts recorded in writing that he has only
requested for information by way of (1) photocopy of the document provided to
the Ld Attorney General for India to make his comment in Para 34 and
consequently convey his opinion in Para 36 of his letter dated 03 Sep 13, and
(2) a photocopy of the Rule 7 (1) (A) of CCS (RP) Rules 1986.
9.4. FAA by using the words “two queries” and “seeking/eliciting
clarifications/interpretations of the Rules/Orders” has converted a
straight-forward request for documents into a colourful exercise of doubtful
integrity.
9.5. Para 2 of Appellate Authority’s Order
dated 13 Nov 13 wilfully misrepresents
the request for information as
queries and thereby provided the first twist to the subsequent part of his
Order. There are no queries, only
request to provide photocopies of documents used by CGDA. This
mis-statement by the Appellate Authority is mischievous and contrary to facts
on record.
9.6. Not satisfied with that
mis-representation, Appellate Authority is Para 3 of dated 13 Nov 13 compounds
the intention by making mala fide misinterpretations, which were never
expressed in the original application or the appeal as explained below, based
entirely on the documents on record.
9.7. Information requested but not provided by
CPIO and the reason for the appeal dated 23 Oct 13 is for a photocopy of the
same document as was provided to the Ld Attorney General to state “…There
is no need to revise the minimum, if as stated by the CGDA it has been fixed on
another basis.” Nothing less, and nothing more.
9.8. A bare reading of the original application
dated 19 Sep 13 and the First Appeal dated 23 Oct 13 reveals that the Appellate
Authority uses terminology i.e. “queries
that are in the nature of seeking/eliciting clarifications/interpretations of
the Rules/Orders” thereby making the original application and the appeal a
colourful fishing exercise.
9.9. The Appellate Authority, having arrogated
to himself the judgmental opinion of “alleged
non-receipt of specific information” compounds the denial of the
information to this applicant/appellant using terminology such as indicated the
manner in which the entire disposal of the appeal has ended. The office of the
Appellate Authority called on 26 Nov 13 at 11:24 am from telephone number +911125674811 enquiring if
this appellant had not received the reply dated 13 Nov 13 to the Appeal.
10. Any other information in support of
appeal (photocopy placed at Annexure
‘D’): Proof of a similar
exercise in intimidation and ridicule by CPIO O/o CGDA
10.1. O/o CGDA’s UO No. AT/I/1483-Army/X (PC)/IV
dated 15 Apr 13, forwarded vide CPIO/AT/HQ/2013/I/1063 dated 15 Apr 13.
10.2. Expression of this applicant/appellant’s
intention to file a complaint vide SYS/RTI/CGDA/2013 dated 25 Apr 13,
10.3. O/o CGDA providing 255 pages of photocopied
material vide CPIO/ AT/HQ/2013/1/1063 dated 22 May 13 and 25 Jun 13.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:
11.1. CPIO and FAA be ordered to provide correct
and complete information relevant to the request for information i.e. a
photocopy of the document of “another basis” to which the Ld Attorney General
has referred.
11.2. Complainant prays that the O/o CIC may award
deterrent punishment under Section 18 for providing incorrect, incomplete
information by the CPIO, and FAA misleading and intimidating this complainant
by substituting words in the original application to justify denial of
information sought under the RTI Act 2005.
12. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:
12.1. CPIO
(Pay/Services) has not provided the information i.e. the document of the
“another basis” placed by the O/o CGDA that convinced the Ld Attorney General
for India to agree with the CGDA. A photocopy of that document be provided.
12.2. Unless
deterrent action is taken against the CPIO and also the Appellate Authority
this flagrant misinterpretation of the text of the application for information,
imputing motives based on imaginary words, determining the nature of the
wording of application to be other than what is truthful and obvious to any lay
reader will continue.
13. Personal Presence at hearing: NO
14. Declaration:
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the
best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not
previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal
or authority.
Sd/-------------------------------------------
Place: Bangalore Signature of complainant
Date: 29 Nov 13
of Mr. SHARAD YESHWANT SAVUR
|
S No.
|
Action
|
Date
|
|
1
|
Application mailed to CPIO
|
19 Sep 13
|
|
2
|
Application received by CPIO
|
Not indicated
|
|
3
|
Date of receipt of letter for paying charges
|
Not received
|
|
4
|
Date of remitting charges to CPIO
|
Not applicable
|
|
5
|
Date of decision of CPIO
|
15 Oct 13
|
|
6
|
Date of receipt of decision of CPIO by appellant
|
22 Oct 13
|
|
7
|
First Appeal mailed to FAA on
|
23 Oct 13
|
|
8
|
Date of receipt of appeal by FAA
|
Not indicated
|
|
9
|
Date(s) of personal hearing by FAA
|
Not applicable
|
|
10
|
Date of decision of FAA
|
13 Nov 13
|
|
11
|
Date of receipt of decision of FAA by appellant
|
26 Nov 13
|
|
12
|
Date of Complaint
|
28 Nov 13
|
|
13
|
Date of mailing copy of Complaint to CPIO & FAA
|
29 Nov 13
|
|
14
|
Date of mailing Complaint to CIC
|
29 Nov 13
|
Place: Bangalore -
560038
Date: 29 Nov 13 Sd/-----------------------
Signature of
appellant/complainant
Enclosures: Annexures as stated
No comments:
Post a Comment