Central Information Commission
Hari Om Meena vs Directorate Of Education on 31 May, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DIRED/A/2018/136845
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/148073
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/148072
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/149653
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/150183
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/156661
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/156994
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/159353
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/160361
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/166448
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/173606
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/173608
CIC/DIRED /A/2018/173609
CIC/DIRED /A/2019/100831
CIC/DIRED /A/2019/101194
Shri Hari Om Meena ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/Directorate of Education (RTI Cell), ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Old Secretariat, Delhi
PIO/Section officer (Vigilance), Old
Secretariat, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (North)
Timarpur, Delhi
PIO/Section officer (Zone-8), Directorate
Of Education, Pratap Nagar, Delhi
PIO/Asst. Director of Education (NW-B),
Pitampura, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (N/E),
Zone-V, Shahdara, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (N/E),
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (E),
Anand Vihar, Delhi
Page 1 of 20
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (Zone-II),
Shakarpur, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (Zone-III),
Rani Garden, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (SW-A),
Vasant Vihar, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education, (West-B),
Vikaspuri, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education, (South),
Defence Colony, Delhi
PIO/Asst. Director of Education, (West-A),
Moti Nagar, Delhi
PIO/Asst. Director of Education (NW-A),
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
PIO/Principal/HOD, Sarvodaya Bal
Vidyalaya, Roshnara Road, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education, (S/E),
Defence Colony, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education, (S/E),
Aided & UPS, Defence Colony, Delhi
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2020
Date of Decision : 31.05.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO
on Appeal
136845 12.04.2018 20.04.2018 03.05.2018 30.05.2018
148073 09.05.2018 04.06.2018 20.06.2018 18.07.2018
148072 09.05.2018 11.06.2018 20.06.2018 05.07.2018
149653 10.05.2018 22.05.2018, 28.06.2018 30.07.2018
30.05.2018,
06.06.2018
150183 09.05.2018 25.05.2018, 20.06.2018 30.07.2018
05.06.2018
156661 11.05.2018 18.06.2018 30.07.2018 24.08.2018
156994 11.05.2018 07.06.2018 06.08.2018 05.09.2018
Page 2 of 20
159353 11.05.2018 Nil 30.07.2018 Nil
160361 11.05.2018 18.07.2018 06.08.2018 05.09.2018
166448 11.05.2018 13.06.2018 06.08.2018 Nil
173606 29.08.2018 Nil 12.10.2018 31.10.2018
173608 28.08.2018 02.11.2018 28.11.2018 07.12.2018
173609 28.08.2018 Nil 12.10.2018 31.10.2018
100831 02.11.2018 26.11.2018 06.12.2018 27.12.2018
101194 01.10.2018 26.10.2018 19.11.2018 18.12.2018
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/136845
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.04.2018 seeking copy of F. No.
DE 7/512/VIG/HQ/2017 alongwith a copy of note sheet and all the
correspondence within 48 hours under the clause of life & liberty.
PIO/Directorate of Education (HQ), vide letter dated 20.04.2018 forwarded the
reply to the Appellant provided by Section Officer (Vig.) vide letter dated
16.04.2018 wherein the information sought was denied under Section 8(1)(g) of
the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal
dated 03.05.2018. FAA vide order dated 30.05.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with
the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Commission has received a communication from R.S. Pathania, Section Officer (Vig.) addressed to the PIO/APIO (HQ), Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi, wherein he stated as under:
"I am directed to refer to your office letter No. DE/RTI (HQ)/ID- 28864/Appeal-No.3750/CIC No. 545/2020/2539 & 2707 dated 18/03/2020 & 20/05/2020 respectively, enclosing therewith a notice of hearing for appeal/Complaint No. File No. CIC/DIRED/A/2018/136845 dated 29-02-2020, alongwith- a copy of Second Appeal, filed by Shri Hari Om Meena (Employee I.D.-20000402, R/O Flat No. 610, DA Block, Sheeshmahal Apartment, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088, before the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner, Room No. 415, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
In the aforesaid appeal petition, the appellant has sought the following relief:-
(A) Directions for initiation of appropriate disciplinary action against the PIO and First Appellate Authority so that such an action is not repeated in future by the PIO and FFA.
(B) The concerned department may be directed to financially compensate the appellant for the sufferings and mental torture suffered by the appellant and the legal expenditure incurred by the appellant.Page 3 of 20
(C) The concerned PIO may be directed to provide the copies of the noting and correspondence sides of the file No.DE7/12/Vig./HQ/2017 without any cost.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
1. The appellant, Shri Hari Om Meena, was posted as Vice-Principal in Govt. Boys Secondary School, Haider Pur Delhi, Department of Education, GNCT of Delhi (School ID-1309272).
2. The appellant, being Head of the School of Govt. Boys Secondary School, Haider Pur Delhi, Department of Education, GNCT of Delhi, was appointed as Centre Superintendent by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, GNCT of Delhi, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 in connection with the conduct of the competitive examination for primary teacher (in MCD school) organized on 29/1002017 (post code 16/17) in the aforesaid school.
3. The Deputy Director of Education (North-West-A), GNCT of Delhi had informed the Director of Education on 04/12/2017 that Sh. Pankaj Arora, Insp. Special Investigating Unit Crime Branch, Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi vide letter No. 688/ACP/SIU/CRIME Branch, Delhi dated 4/12/2017 intimated that Sh. Hari Om Meena, Vice Principal of the aforesaid school was arrested on 30/11/2017 in case of FIR No. 193 dated 29/10/2017 u/s 420/201/120B/34/201 IPC Police Station, Crime Branch, Delhi in connection with the leakage of question paper of the aforesaid examination and accused said Vide-Principal was running in Judicial custody under Orders of the Court of Law and further investigation of the case was in progress. The Deputy Director of Education (North-West-A), GNCTD had recommended that since the custody of the said Vice-Principal exceeded 48 hours, the necessary orders of the deemed suspension u/r 10(2)(a) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the Vice-Principal may be passed.
4. Accordingly, Sh. Hari Om Meena, Vice-Principal was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. the date of detention i.e. 30/11/2017 by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 13/12/2017.
5. The suspension of the appellant was revoked vide order No.F.DE- 7/512/VPL/Vig./HQ/2017/9036-9042 dated 14/12-2018.
6. The Crime Branch, Delhi Police after investigation of the matter, in the above said case FIR No. 193 dated 29/10/2017, had filed Final Report (Chargesheet) under section 173(2) of Cr.PC on 27/12/2017 before the Hon'ble Court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (West District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, against Sh. Hari Om Meena, Vice-Principal and other accused persons involved in the leakage of the question paper of the aforesaid examination. The Crime Branch, Delhi, vide letter dated 16/07/2019, had further intimated to this Department that the Hon'ble Court had taken cognizance in the matter and the case is under trail and Sh. Hari Om Meena, is out on regular bail, vide Hon'ble Court order dated 16/01/2018.
7. The Secretary (Education), GNCT of Delhi had recommended for initiation of the Departmental Proceedings against Sh. Hari Om Meena, Vice-Principal & other officials involved in the above matter.Page 4 of 20
8. The draft charge sheet under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the said Sh. Hari Om Meena and other has already been submitted to the Disciplinary Authority i.e., Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi through the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD, for initiation of Departmental proceedings.
9. Meanwhile, the Appellant had submitted an application dated 12/04/2018 to the PIO, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt. Delhi, seeking information under RTI Act-2005 i.e., to provide the Photostat copy of the file No. DE7/512/Vig./HQ/2017 with note sheets and correspondence of the said file.
10. The Vigilance Branch (HQ), Directorate of Education, GNCTD, on receipt of the aforesaid application dated 12/04/2018 of the Appellant, had examined the same in terms of the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act-2005 and also in the light of the CIC decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08/02/2017. Since, a Criminal Case against the Appellant is already under trial before the Hon'ble Court and also the Education Department had already recommended departmental action against the Appellant and the draft charge sheet under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the said Sh. Hari Om Meena and other has already been submitted to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi through the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD, for initiation of Departmental proceedings, as state above, the information sought by the appellant was denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act-2005 and as per the aforesaid CIC decision.
11. The Vigilance Branch(HQ), Directorate of Education through PIO(HQ), Directorate of Education, GNCTD informed the Appellant that the information sought by him was denied as per section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act-
2005 vide letter No. F.No. DE.7/126/RTI-28864/Vig./HQ/2018/2634 dated 16/04/2018.
12. The Appellant had filed appeal petition dated 03/05.2018 before the First Appellate Authority, Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi. The First Appellate Authority after hearing the parties had passed an order No. DE/RTI (HQ)/ID-28864/Appeal No.3750/2018/4460 dated 30/05/2018 as under:-
"The original RTI application and appeal application filed by the Appellant have been perused. Reply giver by PIO is appropriate.
The appeal is accordingly disposed off."
In view of the above facts, the second appeal petition submitted by the Appellant has no merit and is liable to be dismissed."
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the denial of information under Page 5 of 20 Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the Hon'ble Commission in a catena of cases has decided that if the PIO has any apprehension that the disclosure of names of the Officers/Officials could lead to their targeting, harassment or intimidation, the PIO could have redacted the name and designation or any other identifying particulars of such Officers/Officials and could have provided information to him. He added that the aforesaid procedure has been advocated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v/s. G.S.Sandhu vide decision dated 07.10.2013.
Respondent is represented by Shri Manoj Sharma, PIO through audio conference. He submitted that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant and requested the Commission to take the written submissions on record.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records as well as the submissions of both the parties and observes that the Respondent public authority has relied upon the Commission's earlier order vide Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 in the matter of Shri Satya Vijay Singh vs. CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission; CPIO, Railway Board and CPIO, North Eastern Railway, wherein it was held as under:
"Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information related to CVC has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no action on part of CPIO, CVC is pending. The Commission further observes that the CPIO, North-Eastern Railways has not provided the copy of the inquiry report in respect of appellant's complaint on the plea that the matter relates to a vigilance enquiry and the disclosure of the report would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated on completion of the said inquiry. The Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the Commission has relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617dated 16.09.2009, wherein the Commission has held that:-
"6.........In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the Page 6 of 20 shape of a court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to...........Confidentiality of note- files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties.
In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amount to information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby comes within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005.Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, Commission is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid ratio shall apply to the instant case as well.
Hence, the decision of the PIO is upheld. Commission finds no further interference is required in the instant matter.
The instant Second Appeal is disposed off.
For the following cases, the queries are akin, which are reproduced as under:
The Appellant has sought similar information through various points in all the aforesaid 14 matters regarding various exam centers through which DSSSB conducted examination for recruitment of primary teachers. The information sought are as under:
1. Number of invigilators deployed by the concerned schools along with their names, employee id and contact number.
2. How many rooms of the schools were allotted for exam centres?
3. Provide copy of deployment invigilator/no relation certificate Annex-I for each school.
4. Provide copy of acquaintance roll for each school.
5. Provide copy of school invigilators duty register for each school.
6. List of how many invigilators was mailed to the schools by DSSSB and how many of them actually attended duty as invigilators.
7. Whether written consent from the head of school was obtained regarding staff and infrastructure before awarding centre for examination. If yes, provide copy thereof. And etc. CIC/DIRED/A/2018/148073 PIO/Directorate of Education (ADE)/North, vide letter dated 04.06.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by the concerned PIO wherein it Page 7 of 20 was informed that the relevant information of schools that fall under the purview of Zone-VIII was provided in enclosures.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 20.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 18.07.2018 stated as follows "...it is seen that information sought by the Appellant has already been provided by the PIO, if information is incomplete in respect of any of the school mention in the RTI may be provided within 10 days. The Appeal is disposed off."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
A communication has been received from the Section Officer, O/o. the Regional Director of Education (Central), Directorate of Education, GNCTD, Delhi vide letter dated 06.03.2020 wherein he has informed the PIO/Dy. Director Education (North) to attend the hearing in the instant case.
Commission has received a communication from the O/o. the Dy. Director of Education, Zone-VIII, Pratap Nagar, Delhi wherein he stated as under:
"... it is submitted that, appellant, Hari Om Meena has sought information from 25 schools, but only 09 schools are under the jurisdiction of CPIO (DDE Zone-08) and other 16 schools are under jurisdiction of another CPIO (DDE Zone-07).
Revised reply received from 09 schools (1208002, 1208001, 1208090, 1208021, 1208015, 1208018, 1208092, 1208095, 1208229) are enclosed herewith.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO. He further stated that he has not received any information from Zone-VII till date.
Respondent is represented by Dr. Sudha Singh, PIO, Zone-VIII through audio conference. She submitted that available information has been provided to the Appellant as sought in the instant RTI Application.
Decision:
Upon perusal of facts on case records and on the basis of the submissions of both the parties, Commission observes that sufficient information has been provided to the Appellant by the Respondent public authority.
In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the instant matter.Page 8 of 20
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/148072 PIO/Directorate of Education (ADE)/North-West-B, vide letter dated 11.06.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by the concerned PIO. (Copy of enclosure not placed in the file).
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 20.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 18.07.2018 stated as follows "...it is seen that the sought information has already been provided by the PIO to the Appellant vide PIO's letter No. RTI/No.350/DDE (NW-B)/2018/1014 dated 11.06.2018. Though PIO has replied that information has been provided, if information is incomplete in r/o any school (I.D.) mentioned in the RTI may be provided in 10 days."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
A communication has been received from the PIO/ADE, NW-B vide letter dated 06.03.2020 wherein he has informed the Dy. Director of Education (Zone-XI), Pitampura, Delhi; the Dy. Director of Education (Zone-XII), Mangolpuri, Delhi and the Dy. Director of Education (Zone-XIII), Rohini, Delhi to attend the hearing in the instant case.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.
Respondent did not participate in the hearing since his telephone number could not be reached even after three attempts.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and on the basis of the arguments of the Appellant as well as in the absence of the PIO during the hearing, Commission finds that it will be just and reasonable that a fair hearing be conducted by the RDE(North)/First Appellate Authority in the instant matter. Therefore, the present case is remanded back to the RDE(North)/FAA for proper adjudication of the same upon providing opportunity of fair hearing to both the parties. The appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order.
An action taken report containing the FAA's order shall be submitted to the Commission within 4 weeks from the date of lifting of this lockdown, failing which appropriate action for non-compliance shall be commenced suo-motu.Page 9 of 20
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/149653 PIO/DDE (Zone-V), vide letter dated 22.05.2018 stated that information regarding RTI is attached which is a copy of the school's reply (copy of enclosure not attached).
PIO/DDE (Zone-IV), vide letter dated 30.05.2018 forwarded the reply to the concerned PIO. (Copy of enclosure not attached).
PIO/DDE (Zone-VI), vide letter dated 06.06.2018 furnished available point-wise information to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 30.07.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO. Appellant further stated that he has not received the list of invigilators till date.
Respondent is represented by Shri Surender Kumar Sharma, Dy. Director, Zone-V through audio conference. He submitted that whatever information that was available in their records was provided to the Appellant. Upon being asked, he further submitted that an email was sent to the concerned schools seeking information as sought in the RTI Application and subsequently, whatever reply was received from the concerned schools has been forwarded to the Appellant as it is.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the fact on case records as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that available information has been provided to the Appellant and no documents/records can be created by the Respondent public authority if the same is not available.
In view of the above, Commission finds no infirmity in the decision of the PIO as well as the order of the First Appellate Authority.Page 10 of 20
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/150183 PIO/DDE (Zone-III), vide letter dated 25.05.2018 informed the Appellant that information sought at point nos. 1 to 7 of the RTI Application is not available in their office.
PIO/DDE (Zone-II), vide letter dated 05.06.2018 informed the Appellant with regard to information sought at point nos. 1-8 of the RTI Application that such information is not maintained in their office and hence not available.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 30.07.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
A communication has been received by the PIO/Assistant Director of Education (East), Distt. East vide letter dated 11.03.2020 wherein he has informed the PIO/DDE, Zone-I, Zone-II and Zone-III to attend the hearing in the instant case.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.
Respondent is represented by Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, PIO/Dy. Director, Zone-I and Link Officer to Zone-II; Shri Prem Kumar Tyagi, PIO/Dy. Director, Zone-III through audio conference. Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, PIO submitted that the averred examinations was conducted by the DSSSB and all the documents/information is available with them. He furthermore submitted that certain records such as details of invigilators, deployment of staff are confidential and moreover, the result has also not been disclosed.
Appellant interjected to state that the averred examination was conducted by the DSSSB before 2017 and since then the Directorate of Education are conducting the said examination. He further stated that the results have also been declared and the successful candidates have already joined sometime in the month of September.
In response to the Appellant's averment, PIO submitted that they are not aware of the declaration of results. In addition, documents regarding attendance register of invigilators and deployment of staff etc. were carried by the DSSSB authorities.
Appellant added that the PIO could have obtained the information from the concerned school/department of the DSSSB.
Page 11 of 20Decision:
Upon perusal of facts on record as well as on the basis of the submissions of both the parties, Commission observes that there has been lack of communication between the Appellant, Respondent public authority and the DSSSB. Further, since the information sought by the Appellant pertains to different zones/schools, collation of data requires time and the same is not available at one centralized place.
In view of the above, Commission directs the PIO to write a letter to the DSSSB and ascertain whether the details as sought in the instant RTI Application are available with them or not. In case, if the records are available and can be divulged under the RTI Act, the PIO is directed to provide certified copies of all the available records to the Appellant within 45 days from the date of lifting of the lockdown. In case the DSSSB informs the Respondent public authority that no information is available or can not be divulged, the same shall be categorically conveyed to the Appellant in writing.
An action taken report with regard to the directions of the Commission shall be sent by the PIO, within 15 days therefrom.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/156661 PIO/DDE (SW-A), vide letter dated 18.06.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by the Dy. Director of Education (Zone-20) on point nos. 1-9 of the RTI Application.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 30.07.2018. FAA vide order dated 24.08.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
A communication has been received from the RDE(S)/First Appellate Authority vide letter dated 11.03.2020 wherein he has informed the DDE (South West-A), Directorate of Education, GNCTD to attend the hearing in the instant case.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.
Respondent is represented by Dr. Prakashi Chillar, PIO/Dy. Director, Zone-XIX through audio conference. She submitted that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant.Page 12 of 20
Decision:
Upon perusal of facts on the case record, Commission observes that appropriate information as available have been provided to the Appellant.
In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the instant matter.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/156994 PIO/DDE (West-B), vide letter dated 07.06.2018 forwarded 35 pages of information to the Appellant provided by the Branch Admin/Vigilance/Accounts/Pr. Branch Zone 17/18. (Copy of the enclosure not attached in the file).
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 06.08.2018. FAA vide order dated 05.09.2018 directed the PIO/ADE (West-B), to provide the above mentioned revised replies of DDE, Zone-17 & DDE, Zone-18 to the Appellant within 10 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
A communication has been received by the PIO (Zone-18), District West-B, vide letter dated 23.05.2020 wherein he has informed the status report in the present case. He stated that their office received the instant RTI Application dated 17.05.2018 vide RTI ID no. 284, which was forwarded on 19.05.2018 to HOS of concerned schools who are the custodians of the record dated, to provide the information. In this connection, the requisite information provided by the HOS of concerned schools was sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 07.06.2018, through speed post. Further, as per the direction of the First Appellate Authority to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, the same was sent on 11.10.2018.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he has deposited the requisite amount of fee and has received information as sought in the RTI Application. He expressed his satisfaction over the information received.
Respondent is represented by Smt. Alka Sehrawat, PIO through audio conference.
Decision:
In view of the proceedings during hearing, no further action is warranted in the instant matter.Page 13 of 20
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/159353 Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 30.07.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore; Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
A communication has been received by the PIO/APIO(S), District South, Directorate of Education vide letter dated 18.03.2020 wherein he has forwarded the hearing notice of the Commission to the concerned PIOs.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he has not received any reply from the PIO till date.
Respondent is represented by Shri Ashok Kumar Tyagi, PIO through audio conference. He submitted that an email was sent to the Appellant on 28.05.2020 regarding the information provided by the concerned 20 schools.
He further submitted that the same has been provided to the Commission by hand.
Appellant interjected to state that no email has been received by him.
Decision:
Upon perusal of facts on record as well as on the basis of the submissions of both the parties, Commission observes that the Appellant has not received any information till date.
In view of the above, Commission directs the PIO to provide physical/hard copies of the email and its enclosures to the Appellant within 3 weeks from the date of lifting of the lockdown and a compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/160361 PIO/DDE (West-A), vide letter dated 18.07.2018 forwarded a reply to the Appellant provided by Assistant Director of Education/PIO, District West-A wherein he enclosed the information provided by the DDE Zone-14 vide letter dated 25.06.2018, DDE Zone-15 vide letter dated 21.06.2018 and further informed that the information from DDE Zone-16 is still awaited and the same will be provided shortly.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 06.08.2018. FAA vide order dated 05.09.2018 upheld the reply of PIO Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 14 of 20
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.
Respondent is represented by Shri Rakesh Rahi, PIO/Dy. Director through audio conference.
Decision:
In view of the proceedings during hearing, Commission finds no further interference in the instant matter.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/166448 PIO/DDE (North-West-A), vide letter dated 13.06.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by the concerned PIO. (Copy of enclosure not attached).
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 06.08.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO. He further stated that the First Appeal has not been heard by the First Appellate Authority. He requested the Commission to remand the matter back to the First Appellate Authority.
Respondent is represented by Shri Kailash Chand, PIO through audio conference. He submitted that he will abide by the orders of the Commission, if any in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the proceedings during hearing, Commission finds it just and reasonable that a fair and proper hearing is conducted by Dr. Afshan Yasmin, RDE(North)/First Appellate Authority in the instant matter. Therefore, the present case is remanded back to the RDE(North)/FAA for proper adjudication of the same upon providing opportunity of fair hearing to both the parties. The appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order.Page 15 of 20
An action taken report containing the FAA's order shall be submitted to the Commission within 6 weeks from the date of lifting of the lockdown, failing which appropriate action for non-compliance shall be commenced suo-motu.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/173606 Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.10.2018. FAA vide order dated 31.10.2018 directed the PIO (North) to coordinate with APIOs accordingly and arrange to furnish requisite information to the Appellant.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Commission has received a written submission from PIO (North) wherein he has stated as under:
"...
1. The RTI application was filled by the applicant to PIO of Govt. Schools and they have their own PIO and First Appellate Authority and copy endorsed to this office. PIO has given the information to the applicant on 05-02-2019. The applicant filed another RTI application on 03-10-2018 seeking information of reply from DOE in reference of his previous RTI application. The then PIO (North) has sent the application to schools to provide the information on dated 05-02-2019.
2. The appellant filled the First Appeal before FAA on 28-11-2018. The DDE Zone VII had provided the revised copy on 10-12-2018 and the same was forwarded by the then PIO (North) at his given address vide letter No. DDE (N)/RTI No. 279/2018/547 dated 05-02-2019.
3. The FAA in her order stated that the appeal is disposed off with the direction to the appellant that he may file the appeal in respect of questions pertaining to DSSSB and no information is available in Zone VII. Reply of DDE Zone VII is found not satisfactory. PIO is directed to provide revised reply to the appellant after getting information from DDE Zone VII in respect of all on schools mentioned in RTI application within 10 days of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed off.
Therefore, please find enclosed herewith reply submit receive from schools."
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.
Respondent is represented by Dr. Sudha Singh, PIO, Zone-VIII through audio conference. She submitted that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant in response to the instant RTI Application. Upon being asked, she further submitted that a revised reply has been sent through an email to the Appellant on 05.02.2019.
Page 16 of 20Appellant interjected to state that he has not received any email till date.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and on the basis of the submissions of both the parties, Commission directs the PIO to provide certified copy of the revised reply dated 05.02.2019 to the Appellant within 3 weeks from the date of lifting of the lockdown. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission within 10 days therefrom.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/173608 PIO/DDE (North), vide letter dated 02.11.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by the DDE (Zone-07).
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.11.2018. FAA vide order dated 07.12.2018 directed the PIO to provide revised reply to the Appellant after getting information from DDE (Zone-07) in respect of all the 04 schools mentioned in RTI application within 10 days.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.
Respondent is represented by Dr. Sudha Singh, PIO, Zone-VIII through audio conference. She submitted that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Commission has perused the facts on record and as well on the basis of the submissions of both the parties. PIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant within 4 weeks from the date of lifting of the lockdown. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission within 10 days therefrom.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/173609 Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.10.2018. FAA vide order dated 31.10.2018 directed the PIO (North) to coordinate with APIOs accordingly and arrange to furnish requisite information to the Appellant.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.Page 17 of 20
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he has not received any reply from the PIO till date.
Respondent is represented by Dr. Sudha Singh, PIO, Zone-VIII through audio conference. She submitted that available and relevant information was provided to the Appellant in compliance with the order of the First Appellate Authority.
Appellant interjected to state that he has not received any information.
Decision:
Upon perusal of facts on record and on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission directs the PIO to provide the necessary information to the Appellant within 4 weeks from the date of lifting of the lockdown. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission within 10 days therefrom.
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/100831 PIO/Distt. North West-A vide letter dated 26.11.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by the Dy. Director of Education, Zone-09, Distt. North West-A wherein he had enclosed the requisite information on point nos. 1-13 of the RTI Application received from the concerned HoS under Zone-09.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2018. FAA vide order dated 27.12.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO. He further stated that the First Appeal has not been heard by the First Appellate Authority. He requested the Commission to remand the matter back to the First Appellate Authority.
Respondent is represented by Shri Kailash Chand, PIO through audio conference. He submitted that he will abide by the orders of the Commission, if any in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the proceedings during hearing, Commission finds it just and reasonable that a fair and proper hearing is conducted by Dr. Afshan Yasmin, RDE(North)/First Appellate Authority in the instant matter. Therefore, the present case is remanded back to the RDE(North)/FAA for proper adjudication Page 18 of 20 of the same upon providing opportunity of fair hearing to both the parties. The appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order.
An action taken report containing the FAA's order shall be submitted to the Commission within 6 weeks from the date of lifting of the lockdown, failing which appropriate action for non-compliance shall be commenced suo-motu.
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/101194 PIO/DDE (SE), vide letter dated 26.10.2018 forwarded a reply to the Appellant provided by the DDE (Zone-29), Distt. South East.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 19.11.2018. FAA vide order dated 18.12.2018 stated as follows "...that available information has been provided to the Appellant. The Appeal is hereby disposed off with the above directions."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Commission has received a revised reply from HoS, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Sadiq Nagar vide letter dated 12.03.2020 in response to the information sought in the instant RTI Application.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO. He further stated that no information has been provided by the PIO, Zone-29 till date.
Respondent is represented by Shri Shamshad Ali, PIO through audio conference. He submitted that available and relevant information have been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of facts on record, Commission finds that appropriate information has been provided to the Appellant as available in the records of the Respondent public authority.
In view of the above, Commission finds no further reason to interfere in the instant matter.Page 19 of 20
With the aforesaid directions, all the 15 Appeals are disposed off.
वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा)
Y. K. Sinha(वाई िस हा
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर)
Page 20 of 20