Shri Balwant Singh, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 22.2.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi for not providing information in response to his RTI application dated 22.9.2011. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri S.K. Jain, Director (Services) and Shri Vyomesh Pant, Section Officer.
2. The appellant has filed an RTI application dated 22.9.2011 wherein he sought action taken report on his representation dated 1.3.2010 relating to his promotion to the post of ACP after opening the sealed envelope by the DPC held in 2002.
3. After failing to get any response from the CPIO the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA on 19.12.2011. The CPIO vide his letter No. 14039/8/2011-UTS-II dated 14.2.2012 informed the appellant that his RTI application dated 22.9.2011 has not been received in the Ministry. The appellant was further informed that his representation dated 1.3.2010 does not seem to Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001320 have been received in the Ministry and it was also not found enclosed with his first appeal. Since the said representation was not received in the Ministry, the outcome cannot be intimated.
4. According to the respondent the RTI application dated 22.9.2011 was not received in the Ministry. In his first appeal the appellant had referred his representation dated 1.3.2010 regarding his promotion to the post of ACP. As per records of the Ministry, the said representation dated 1.3.2010 has also not been received in the Ministry. In the absence of the RTI application as well as the said representation dated 1.3.2010, the matter was examined in the Ministry and factual position has been conveyed to the appellant by the CPIO that neither his RTI application nor his representation dated 1.3.2010 were received in the Ministry. The grievance of the appellant is regarding his promotion to the post of ACP. He was considered by the DPC on 7.8.202 for ad-hoc promotion to Entry Grade of DANIPS. However, the recommendations of DPC was kept in sealed cover as the appellant was not clear from vigilance angle. Ad-hoc promotion cannot be granted after retirement.
5. The appellant insisted that he should be informed of the outcome of the DPC decision regarding his ad-hoc promotion to the post of ACP, which was kept in sealed cover. The appellant submits that at the time of superannuation on 31.8.2003 there was one Departmental enquiry pending against him, which was finalized in the year 2009 where President of India dropped all the charges against him vide order No. 14011/63/08-UTP/MHA dated 31.12.2009.
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to inform the appellant of the outcome of the aforementioned DPC, in which his case was kept in sealed cover, within ten days of receipt of this order. Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001320 The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with the above directions. (Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy: (K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties: Shri Balwant Singh, House No. 6756, Block No. 10, Gali No,. 3, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. The Director (Services) & CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001. The First Appellate Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001.