:
1. Appellant through his RTI application sought information with respect to details of the order regarding the FAA . PIO replied on 11414. Being unsatisfied with PIO reply, the appellant made First Appeal. First Appellate Authority upheld the PIO reply. Unsatisfied with FAA order, appellant approached the Commission through this present second appeal.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
CIC/SA/A/2014/001089 Page 1
1. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant stated that in response to his RTI application, the CPIO replied on 1142014 stating that Mr. MK Sharma, Additional Secretary was the FAA prior to appointment of Ms. Geeta Rawat, whereas vide order dated 882013, in para 3, it is stated that Ms. Geeta Rawat shall function as FAA in place of S.S.Chahar, Additional Secretary. The appellant pointed out that it is a serious contradiction. The appellant also questioned the mechanism in not maintaining separate record for the FAA and not having separate register for receipt of first appeals. He contended that the FAA being an independent Constitutional office head and a senior officer of the rank of Joint Secretary/Additional Secretary, is expected to have his own independent records. Such higher authority cannot depend upon the records of other wings. The Commission finds merit in submissions made by the appellant. Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act mandates that the records should be separately categorized and maintained by the Public Authority. As per the DOPT circular dated 1542014, the Public Authority is required to place the records of FAA along with other relevant records on their official website. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to provide necessary facilities to FAA to maintain separate record independent of other wings and report the compliance within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.