Court : Central Information Commission
Brief : Right to Information - CBEC - right of Wife to Documents of Suspended Husband
Citation : Yet to be reported
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
…..
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01443
Dated, the 22nd May, 2008.
Appellant : Ms.Meenakshi Singal.
Respondents : Central Board of Excise & Customs.
This matter came up for hearing on 14.05.2008, when the appellant was present in person, assisted by her representative, Shri Rajeshwar Singal. The respondents were represented by the CPIO, Shri Vijay K. Sharma.
2. At the outset, the appellant’s rep. stated that the appellant’s request for information could be limited to three items, viz.
“(1) Request for supply of copy of any judicial decision or DOPT circulars by which my promotion was withheld in September 2000.
(2) Request for supply of reasons as to why my suspension case was dealt in a different manner than other officers.
(3) Request for supply of copy of extension of suspension during November 2005 to May 2006.”
3. The appellant’s rep. also stated that from the Department of Personnel & Training the appellant had received the copy of Instructions regarding promotion of officers facing various departmental or vigilance proceedings. The appellant’s main point is to elicit from the respondents the reasons for denial of promotion to her husband, Shri Rajeshwar Singal by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and for his continued suspension. She believes that her husband’s case was dealt-with rather harshly by the department and the relief made available to other similarly placed officers ¯ even in cases worse than appellant’s husband’s ¯ was not afforded to him.
4. A perusal of the request made by the appellant shows that what she has requested is more in the nature of explanations and reasons for certain queries which she have had about her husband’s continued suspension and denial of promotion to him. The respondents are not obliged to answer such queries because the answer to these queries would not reveal any information which could be defined in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is, therefore, held that there is no obligation cast on the respondents to answer queries at Sl.No.1 and 2 of the appellant’s RTI-application dated 12.03.2007.
5. As regards query at Sl.No.3, a copy of the continuation of suspension order has already been supplied to the appellant’s husband, Shri Rajeshwar Singal. A copy of the same order was handed over to the appellant by the respondents during the hearing.
6. In view of the above, the appeal cannot be sustained. Closed.
7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
