PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Vs. SOMEN KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent before this Court filed an application dated 30.12.2008 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, seeking information on as many as 72 points, regarding suspension of one Mr K.M. Somasundram, who was suspended on 03.11.1995. The hand-written application runs into as many as 38 pages. Since no reply was received by him from the CPIO, he preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Vide response dated 30.3.2009, the First Appellate Authority informed him that it was not practically possible to supply the information sought by him within the stipulated time period and that in any case, a large part of the information had already been supplied to him, while responding to his earlier request under Right to Information Act. The First Appellate Authority found that some questions were not at all comprehensible, besides being extraordinarily lengthy. However, he did direct the CPIO to furnish certain information within 15 days. In compliance of said directions, the CPIO gave point-wise information to the respondent on 20.04.2009. Being dissatisfied, the responded preferred a second appeal before the Central Information Commission. During the course of hearing before the Commission, the petitioner informed the Commission that in the absence of any instruction from the Competent Authority, no proposal for initiating disciplinary action against Mr K.M. Somasundram, was initiated though suspension order was reviewed after every six months. It was explained that this was the reason no chargesheet against Mr K.M. Somasundram was issued to him. The appeal was disposed of by the Commission with the following order:-

(2.) Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, provides that any person, who is aggrieved on account of not receiving a decision on his application within the time stipulated in this regard, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority. A second appeal against the decision of the First Appellate Authority is envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. Sub-section (8) of the said Section deals with the power of the Commission and the said sub-section reads as under:-

(3.) It would thus be seen that as far as the case at hand is concerned, the Commission could only have directed providing the information which the respondent had sought, provided such an information was actually available in the form of a record, maintained by the public authority concerned. The other powers conferred upon the Commission are not relevant for the purpose of the petition before this Court and, therefore, need not be considered. During the course of hearing before the Commission, it was informed that the only reason for not initiating disciplinary proceedings against Mr K.M. Somasundram was absence of instructions from the Competent Authority in this regard. Whether the Competent Authority was justified in not giving any instructions with respect to disciplinary proceedings against Mr K.M. Somasundram, despite his suspension or not is not a matter falling in the domain of Central Information Commission. The Commission has no jurisdiction to require that the proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings against Mr K.M. Somasundram be forwarded to the concerned Minister under intimation to the Commission and the respondent before this Court and also direct that all efforts be made to issue chargesheet to him. The Commission would be travelling beyond its jurisdiction in giving directions of this nature. The only function which the Commission was to verify on the appeal filed by the respondent was to ascertain whether any information sought by him was available with the petitioner before this Court and had been denied to the respondent or not. Once it was found that there was no record being withheld from the respondent and the only reason for not initiating disciplinary against Mr K.M. Somasundram was absence of instructions from the Competent Authority for initiating such proceedings, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission to direct the petitioner to provide an affidavit to the respondent, giving the reasons for not initiating the disciplinary proceedings against Mr K.M. Somasundram and not issuing the chargesheet to him. The direction issued by the Commission, in my view, was wholly uncalled for and unnecessary. The Commission, in order to satisfy itself that a correct statement was being made before it in this regard, could have directed confirmation of the said statement, by way of an affidavit, to be filed before it, with copy to the respondent, but to provide an affidavit to the applicant under Right to Information Act is not envisaged under the provisions of the said Act.