MANNU SINGH Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INFORMATION Commissioner 1. Though registered as a complaint, we are treating this matter as an appeal because in his communication dated 5.6.2013 to the CIC, the Appellant had described it as second appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act.

(2.) THIS matter pertains to an RTI application dated 29.2.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on seven points. Not having responded on 19.8.2013. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 11.9.2013. In his order dated 11.10.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant filed an appeal dated 29.10.2013 to the CIC, which was received the Commission on 13.6.2013.

(3.) THE Appellant submitted that the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar (points 6 and 7 of the RTI application) were dispensed with in an irregular manner by the bank and that he had sought the information, as per his RTI application, in the above context. He further submitted that Shri Rajesh Kumar lost his labour dispute case with the bank because the information sought by him (the Appellant) in his RTI application was not provided within the stipulated time -frame. He prayed for provision of the information sought by him, imposition of penalty on the CPIO and award of compensation to him.