Central Information Commission
Dr. Sanjai Sharma vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 7 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604107/MOHRD+
CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604106/MOHRD
Dr. Sanjai Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.10.2023 FA : 14.12.2023 SA : 30.01.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 23.06.2025
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Decision: 05.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604107/MOHRD
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1) Name of employees (Teaching/Non-Teaching) to whom NOC for applying outside of parent employment have been issued during the period January 22 to December 22 and number NOC issued to each employee.Page 1 of 32
2) List of permanent non-teaching and contractual staff with their designation appointed before 2019 and presently working at their position.
3) Copy of notifications issued to non-teaching staff to mark attendance after 1st January 2019 to till date.
4) 4. Attendance records (in a compact disk/ paper form as available) of employees asked at point number 2 for the following periods:
a) 1st January 2019 to 31st January 2019.
b) 1st Feb2022 to 15th Feb 2022
c) 1st May 2023 to 15th May 2023
d) 1st July 2023 to 10th July 2023
e) 1st Oct 2023 to 10th Oct 2023
5) Copy of rule(s)/norm under which no more than four application can be forwarded for outside employment in a year.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604106/MOHRD
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1) Copy of notification of grievance committee issued for non-teaching staff from year 2016 to till date, consisting name of members.
2) Copy of communication details with members regarding inclusion of their name in the committee for the period mentioned at point number 1.
3) Copy of status/action taken on application submitted by undersigned, in the office vide diary no. 99 dated 18/08/2022.
4) Copy of notifications issued by the college for opening college for conduction of theory/practical classes in complete physical mode during end period of covid 19 that is notifications issued after October, 2021.Page 2 of 32
5) Copy showing action taken/status on the grievance submitted by undersigned to the Liaison Officer (Dr. Rakesh Yadav), Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College (University of Delhi) vide email dated 13/4/2023 and reminder thereupon dated 27/06/2023.
6) Copy of communication details between Liaison Officer and other authorities of the college on the grievance submitted to Liaison Officer by undersigned.
3. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeals dated 14.12.2023. The FAA's order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals dated 30.01.2024.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kulvinder Singh, PIO and Mr. Subhash Agarwal, RTI Consultant, attended the hearing in-person.
6. In file no. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604107, the appellant inter alia submitted that no reply to the RTI application has been received till the date of filing present Second appeal to the Commission. He stated that improper reply has been provided by the CPIO through their written submission dated 10.06.2025. He objected against the invocation of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO on point no. 1 and 3 and argued that he did not agree that the information sought could be denied on such grounds as he had sought number of employees to whom NOC was issued and copy of notification. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information on point no. 1 and 3. A written submission dated 05.02.2025 of the appellant is reproduced as under:-
"1. I sought certain information under RTI Act-2005 on six points mentioned in RTI application registered online vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60013 dated 23.10.2023. PIO had not replied to the RTI application till the date of filing Second Appeal before Hon'ble CIC.
2. I filed an appeal under section-19 of RTI Act-2005 before FAA. registered online vide registration number DDUCO/A/2023/60009 dated 14.12.2023 requesting FAA Page 3 of 32 to direct PIO to provide desired information without any delay and do the needful under the law. No decision was supplied by the FAA till the date of filing Second Appeal before Hon'ble CIC.
3. I filled Second Appeal on 30.01.2024 which was registered before Hon'ble Central Information Commission vide registration number CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604107.
4. Non-entertainment of RTI application at the level of PIO and FAA. forced applicant to approach before CIC for his justified information. Nonresponse of PIO as well as FAA is against the rule of disposing off application as per section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005. Not entertaining application after receiving comes u/s 7(2) of said Act, that is PIO has refused to entertain Application under RTI Act.
5. That in a casual approach, PIO rejected the RTI application (filled online vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60013 dated 23.10.2023) on 03.06.2024 at 15.41.49 pm, simply by saying reason of rejection "Others" without uploading any document related to reply and has knowingly and intentionally mentioned that "reply attached". Also, no documents of reply had been uploaded on the online portal. (Copy of screen shot is annexed as Annexed-1 for your kind reference).
6. Also, PIO had not supplied said information through any means of communication to the applicant as he had mentioned online that reply is attached.
7. On the same line and on the same day i.e. on 03.06.2024 within a gap of two hours, FAA disposed off the Appeal of applicant at 17:15:40 pm by saying in his decision that PIO has replied to the applicant vide DDUC/RTI/Reply/2023/258 dated 31.05.2024, which was never reached to applicant. (Copy of screen shot and decision of FAA are annexed as Annexed-2 [Colly] for your kind reference)
8. All the activities related to reply by PIO and disposing of First Appeal by FAA were performed after expiring the limit of days fixed in the RTI Act, to supply information and First Appeal to be decided by FAA. RTI application is disposed-off by the both responsible authorities after a long period that is nearly after a delay of Page 4 of 32 eight months which is clear violation of rules established in the RTI Act-2005, and all these are done deliberately, knowingly and intentionally to hide the information and to be escaped from accountability and responsibility.
Not entertaining application by the PIO under RTI Act, shows his casual approach towards the Act. Also, decision not taken by FAA on appeal filed by applicant encouraged PIO for his irresponsible behaviour and casual approach in adhering the guidelines of the Act. Both the authorities are conjointly have acted for hiding information and have crushed the spirit of RTI Act and violated every norm of Act.
Hence, from the above facts, this may observe that PIO has violated all the norms set for supplying information under RTI Act-2005 and FAA has justified the act of PIO.
The duties of PIO are described in the following judgements:
In the case of sh Rakesh Kumar Gupta (erstwhile cpio) union Bank of india & ors. Vs. Central information commission & anr... Respondents (W.P. (C) 900/2021 and CMAPPL. 2395/2021, decided on January 22, 2021), The Honourable High Court of Delhi has quoted the following extract:
R.K Jain v. Union of India (LPA 369/2018, decided on 29th August, 2019) Honourable High Court of Delhi has recognised that the CPIO, being the custodian of information or documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information, and in cases of default, the penal action is to be invoked against the CPIO only.
In case of J.P. Agrawal v. Union of India (WP(C) 7232/2009, decided on 4th August, 2011) the Id. Single Judge of Honourable High Court of Delhi has recognised that CPIOs/PIOs are not merely "post offices" and have a crucial responsibility in facilitating the purpose of the RTI Act. The court has held that:
Under Section 6(1) and 7(1) of the RTI Act, it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted, and it is he who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought Page 5 of 32 is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department, if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information, the PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.
The PIO is expected to apply his/her mind, duly analyze the material before him/her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve/forward what his subordinates have done.
In case of Mujibur Rehman v. Central Information Commission, Central Information Commission held that information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for and are not to be driven away through filibustering tacties and it is to ensure a culture of information disclosure that penalty provisions have been provided in the RTI Act. The Act has conferred the duty to ensure compliance on the PIO.
This Court in Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava 2009 held that a PIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information; that the Act as framed casts obligation upon the PIO to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied. Even otherwise, the settled position in law is that an officer entrusted with the duty is not to act mechanically.
In case of application submitted by applicant which was registered vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60011 dated 23.10.2023, PIO had summarily rejected application nearly after 8 months only based on Voluminous, Scattered and without uploading information, PIO had written that information uploaded. This statement of PIO was misguiding. Further, in his submission before Hon'ble CIC he had submitted baseless reasons(s) for not providing information and said, information Page 6 of 32 are exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The second appeal submitted by applicant before Hon'ble CIC vide registration no. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604103 which was heard by Hon'ble CIC on 13/02/2025 and an order was passed on 07.04.2025 directing PIO to provide revised information and show cause to appear on 08.05.2023.
In-spite of appearing before Hon'ble CIC, PIO choose to challenge the Order dated
07.04.2025 which is pending before Hon'ble High Court. Even though, on the direction of Hon'ble High Court Delhi in his Order dated 06.05.2025, information provided for certain point(s) is/are not as per information desired.
In the Order dated 07.04.2025, Hon'ble CIC also has decided at para-4 which is reproduced hereunder:
4. After hearing the averment of the respondents and on the perusal of the facts on record, the Commission concludes that undoubtedly, the applicant is misusing the RTI Act to settle personal scores with his former employer.
With humble and folded hand this is to state that applicant is presently an employee of the college and not former employee and file applications under RTI Act only to collect desirable information which is not provided on simple application as an employee and related to applicant. Information sought is necessary to approach at appropriate platform/before higher authority against discriminatory act of Authority of College and thus under Right to Information and being a Citizen of India, applicant file application and not with sole aim to pressurize the college for any demand. For his legitimate demand(s), applicant plan to approach higher authority with documentary proof and documents lies with authority of the college and to collect information, applicant filed application under RTI Act.
The allegations of PIO, Dr. Sachin Mittal, were made in his previous representation and in every further representation submitted before Hon'ble CIC that applicant is habitual RTI applicant and filing RTI application indiscriminately with the college with sole aim to pressurize the college for his such demands which are neither Page 7 of 32 feasible nor allowed as per rules of Delhi University. All these allegations of PIO were baseless and were stated without any proof to substantiate his allegations. These allegations were made by PIO only to divert his intentions and act of not following RTI rules crushing sole of the Act.
In the previous two appeals of applicant which was registered vide Appel no. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 & CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 and were heard by Hon'ble CIC on 14.06.24 and an Order was passed on 21.06.2024. The presentation of applicant in Appeal CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 which are reproduced hereunder:
2. In reply of point No.2, there is no record of dispatched number as desired in application and replied that it has delivered by hand. Here again question of mismanagement in the office in respect of diary and dispatch number which show that fact is being hide. Here, PIO have misled by hiding the fact in connection with the Officiating Principal that the office of Officiating has delivered the said document to Honorable, Chairman, Governing Body, by hand,
3. In the reply of point number-3, again PIO have supplied a wrong and misleading information about the fact that no information available.
4. In the reply of point number-4 what is asked is not supplied. As information sought is action taken by Officiating Principal on the decision/direction of Honorable Chairman hut PIO supplying information related to decision of Chairman, Grievance Committee which is again misleading information.
5. In the reply of point number-5 again same act has heen done by PIO as I have asked information on the action taken by Officiating Principal on the application submitted by applicant in the office while information is being supplied by PIO in case of action taken by Chairman, Grievance Committee on the letter supplied by Deputy Registrar Colleges).
DU vide letter No. CB-III/149/Grievance/DDU/2023/650 dated 20/09/2023..."
Page 8 of 32In the above para-2, PIO had replied that letter is delivered by hand to Chairman, Governing Body, without mentioning date and any record of delivery as desired in application. An official letter delivered to any authority or any employee without any proof of delivery has no authentication of submission of letter.
In the above para-3, PIO had not made any effort in collecting information from Principal/ Chairman Governing Body regarding asked information.
In the above para- 4 & 5, PIO failed, in distinguishing Chairman, Governing Body and Chairman, Grievance Committee and had produced wrong information in his reply while he was a class-1 Officer. As asked for action of Chairman, Governing Body, PIO had replied about the Action of Chairman, Grievance Committee.
All the above facts show that either PIO was negligent towards his duty or had deliberately not provided correct information.
Hon'ble CIC ignored my request on PIO's supplying wrong information by the statement given in the order of Second CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 which is reproduced hereunder: Appeal
9. Furthermore, in the facts of the instant matter, the Appellant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6 proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. "(Emphasis Supplied) The prayer was not for correction of information, but the presentation was against the act of PIO and his motive of supplying wrong information casually and knowingly. The PIO was liable to penalize for providing wrong information under section-20 of RTI Act as he had knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading Page 9 of 32 information without any effort of collecting information from the authority having control on the information desired.
The purpose of describing the above facts is only to show PIO's mala-fide intention of not providing information and if providing, some wrong information supplied either knowingly or deliberately.
RTI filed by the applicant is genuine and to seek information only when it required and denied by the college in case of information related to applicant itself and in case of those act and decision of authority which are against the rule of law and being implemented in discriminatory manner among the employee and related to transparency and accountability in the functioning of the college.
At many situations application under RTI act is filled due to rigidness of office of FAA, in providing information which comes directly under the control of FAA and office acts only on the direction of FAA as Principal of the College. PIO always quote that "the information are Voluminous and Scattered and are of personal in nature and summarily rejected based on voluminous, scattered and is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) without justification reason(s) violating rules of RTI Act.
The applicant comes before Hon'ble CIC for information only under his constitutional right to have information related to him and/or for those which are in larger public interest so that there is transparency and accountability to be reflected in the functioning of Institution without any targeted and mala-fide intention of authority towards some employee of the college.
Prayer:
Here, PIO as well as FAA both have not performed their duties as per RTI Act-2005 and directions given by Honorable High Courts in various cases in respect of responsibility of PIO/CPIO. Hence, based on facts and extracts of judgements provided here. PIO is to be penalized for his irresponsible act in supplying information under Section-20 of RTI Act and for not performing his duty in a serious Page 10 of 32 manner. Also, FAA has denied his duty as custodian and have violated the norms of RTI Act in deciding Appeal.
Therefore, it is a humble request to pass an order against PIO and FAA for their irresponsible acts in supplying information and deciding First Appeal as per Act and direct them to provide desired information. Here it is worth mentioning that the post occupied by both authorities are respectable, responsible and are liable for nurturing society and youth in an honest manner and they are icon for youth/society. They are in such profession who are engaged in developing youth who are future of country and hence their act at such position cannot be justified in any manner for hiding information related to transparency and accountability and are liable to be penalized under section-20 of the Act by imposing penalty of Rs. 250 per day till the date of entertaining RTI application and up to maximum fine fixed under law and/or any other penalty which Hon'ble CIC deem to fit as per existing law with direction to the PIO to supply all information sought in the application of applicant at earliest."
The respondent submitted that the information sought on the above said points were personal details of other employees (third-partis), hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. A written submission dated 10.06.2025 of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
Point-number (1) Information is declined as exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act being personal in nature in regard to employees about whom information is sought. Reference is invited to verdict dated 13.11.2019 by Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court (Civil Appeal number 2683, 10044 & 10045 of 2010) in the matter "Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court versus Subhash Chandra Agrawal" wherein Hon'ble Court while defining parameters for responding to RTI applications, also elaborated exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Relevant extracts of the verdict are as here-under Page 11 of 32
59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status,marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, all are treated as personal information. Similarly professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.
44. In line with the aforesaid discussion, we need to note that following non-
exhaustive considerations needs to he considered while assessing the 'public interest' under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
a) Nature and content of the information
b) Consequences of non-disclosure; dangers and benefits to public
c) Type of confidential obligation.
d) Beliefs of the confidant; reasonable suspicion
e) Party to whom information is disclosed
f) Manner in which information acquired
g) Public and private interests
h) Freedom of expression and proportionality.
Otherwise also information sought is scattered is scattered in too many files, providing which will disproportionately diversify resources of the College, and cannot be provided as per para37 of of Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in Page 12 of 32 the matter "Central Board of secondary Education versus Aditya Banopadhyaya and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Point-number (2) List of permanent and contractual non-teaching staff with their designation and presently working at their position is attached.
Point-number (3) Please refer to response to query (1) above, Information in case of the appellant cannot be provided as these are the details/documents etc details of which are held by the appellant himself. Reference in this context is invited to verdict dated 17.09.2014 of Madras High Court (Writ Petition number 26781/2013) in the matter "High Court, Madars versus Central Information Commission" wherein Hon'ble court held as under:
Page 13 of 32"Insofar as query (lv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent ix entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, udmittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect."
Point-number (4) Please refer to response to point-number (1) and (3) above.
Reference is further invited to Delhi High Court verdict dated 31.08.2020 in the matter "Dr RS Gupta vs Govt. Of NCTD & Others" (LPA 207/2020) wherein Hon'ble Court observed as:
Further, the appellant is seeking attendance record of the other staff members of the Geeta Senior Secondary School No.2, Sultanpuri, Delhi. Since the information requested relates to attendance record, it would entail revealing medical and personal information of an individual. The attendance record is part of service record which is a matter between the employee and the employer and ordinarily these aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information". The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.Page 14 of 32
Point-number (5) Copy is provided earlier also and again attached (Swamy's Handbook-2025, page no 454) It may be further brought to notice of your honour that the petitioner who is an employee of the College is a habitual RTI applicant filing RTI applications indiscriminately with the College with sole aim to pressurize the college-authorities for his such demands which are neither feasible nor allowed as per rules of Delhi University. The petitioner Dr Sanjai Sharma even tried to file a petition routed through University of Delhi in proxy name "Nirmala" in file-number CIC/UODEL/A/2023/631492. (copy of particular page of Second appeal is enclosed for kind ready reference of your honour.
The petitioner is misusing RTI Act by filing so many RTI applications with the College in a regular manner, a tendency held misuse of RTI Act in several verdicts from courts and Central Information Commission. Some of verdicts from Delhi High Court on misuse of RTI Act are:
Verdict dated 08.10.2015 (WPC 7911/2015) in the matter "Rajni Maindiratta versus PIO, Director of Education (North-West B)"
Verdict dated 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar and others"
Verdict dated 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others"
Attention is also drawn to CIC-verdict dated 25.02.2011 in file-number CIC/LS/C/2009/000770-DS in the matter "Dr Rajender K Singla versus Directorate of Higher Education (Chandigarh), decision-part of which is reproduced as hereunder:
Decision Page 15 of 32
4. After hearing the averment of the respondents and on perusal of the facts on record, the Commission concludes that undoubtedly, the appellant is misusing the RTI Act to settle personal scores with his former employer. The commission rules that such vexatious applications can be summarily dismissed at the level of the CPIO since it is obvious that these applications are not being preferred in public interest and are in fact adversely impacting the functioning of the public authority instead of strengthening it, which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the RTI Act."
RTI consultant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal (Mobile number 9810033711) will represent the College before your honour during the CIC-hearing. It is prayed accordingly.
7. In file no. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604106, the appellant submitted that in this case also the information sought on point no. 1, 2 and 4 was denied u/s 8 1 (j), though he had sought general information like copy of notification of grievance committee issued for non-teaching staff, communication details with members w.r.t inclusion of their names in the committee and copy of notice issued before opening of college which should also be maintained by the respondent authority on their website. A written submission dated 05.02.2025 of the appellant is reproduced as under:-
1. I sought certain information under RTI Act-2005 on six points mentioned in RTI application registered online vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60012 dated 23.10.2023. ΡΙO had not replied to the RTI application till the date of filing Second Appeal before Hon'ble CIC.
2. I filed an appeal under section-19 of RTI Act-2005 before FAA, registered online vide registration number DDUCO/A/2023/60008 dated 14.12.2023 requesting FAA to direct PIO to provide desired information without any delay and do the needful under the law. No decision was supplied by the FAA till the date of filing Second Appeal before Hon'ble CIC.Page 16 of 32
3. 1 filled Second Appeal on 30.01.2024 which was registered before Hon'ble Central Information Commission vide registration number CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604106.
4. Non-entertainment of RTI application at the level of PIO and FAA, forced applicant to approach before CIC for his justified information. Nonresponse of PIO as well as FAA is against the rule of disposing off application as per section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005. Not entertaining application after receiving comes u/s 7(2) of said Act, that is PIO has refused to entertain Application under RTI Act.
5. That in a casual approach, PIO rejected the RTI application (filled online vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60012 dated 23.10.2023) on 03.06.2024 at 15.44.23 pm, simply by saying reason of rejection "Others" without uploading any document related to reply and has knowingly and intentionally mentioned that "reply attached". Also, no documents of reply had been uploaded on the online portal. (Copy of screen shot is annexed as Annexed-1 for your kind reference).
6. Also, PIO had not supplied said information through any means of communication to the applicant as he had mentioned online that reply is attached.
7. On the same line and on the same day i.e. on 03.06.2024 within a gap of two hours, FAA disposed off the Appeal of applicant at 17:14:48 pm by saying in his decision that PIO has replied to the applicant vide DDUC/RTI/Reply/2023/257 dated 31.05.2024, which was never reached to applicant and decision: (Copy of screen shot and decision of FAA are annexed as Annexed-2 [Colly] for your kind reference)
8. All the activities related to reply by PIO and disposing of First Appeal by FAA were performed after expiring the limit of days fixed in the RTI Act, to supply information and First Appeal to be decided by FAA. RTI application is disposed-off by the both responsible authorities after a long period that is nearly after a delay of eight months which is clear violation of rules established in the RTI Act-2005, and Page 17 of 32 all these are done deliberately, knowingly and intentionally to hide the information and to be escaped from accountability and responsibility.
Not entertaining application by the PIO under RTI Act, shows his casual approach towards the Act. Also, decision not taken by FAA on appeal filed by applicant encouraged PIO for his irresponsible behaviour and casual approach in adhering the guidelines of the Act. Both the authorities are conjointly have acted for hiding information and have crushed the spirit of RTI Act and violated every norm of Act.
Hence, from above facts, this may observe that PIO has violated all the norms set for supplying information under RTI Act-2005 and FAA has justified the act of PIO.
The duties of PIO are described in the following judgements:
In the case of sh Rakesh Kumar Gupta (erstwhile cpio) union Bank of india & ors. Vs. Central information commission & anr... Respondents (W.P. (C) 900/2021 and CMAPPL. 2395/2021, decided on January 22, 2021), The Honourable High Court of Delhi has quoted the following extract:
R.K Jain v. Union of India (LPA 369/2018, decided on 29th August, 2019) Honourable High Court of Delhi has recognised that the CPIO, being the custodian of information or documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information, and in cases of default, the penal action is to be invoked against the CPIO only.
In case of J.P. Agrawal v. Union of India (WP(C) 7232/2009, decided on 4th August, 2011) the Id. Single Judge of Honourable High Court of Delhi has recognised that CPIOs/PIOs are not merely "post offices" and have a crucial responsibility in facilitating the purpose of the RTI Act. The court has held that:
Under Section 6(1) and 7(1) of the RTI Act, it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted, and it is he who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the Page 18 of 32 PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information, the PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.
The PIO is expected to apply his/her mind, duly analyze the material before him/her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve/forward what his subordinates have done.
In case of Mujibur Rehman v. Central Information Commission, Central Information Commission held that information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for and are not to be driven away through filibustering tactics and it is to ensure a culture of information disclosure that penalty provisions have been provided in the RTI Act. The Act has conferred the duty to ensure compliance on the PIO.
This Court in Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava 2009 held that a PIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information; that the Act as framed casts obligation upon the PIO to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied. Even otherwise, the settled position in law is that an officer entrusted with the duty is not to act mechanically.
In case of application submitted by applicant which was registered vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60011 dated 23.10.2023, PIO had summarily rejected application nearly after 8 months only based on Voluminous, Scattered and without uploading information, PIO had written that information uploaded. This statement of PIO was misguiding. Further, in his submission before Hon'ble CIC he had submitted baseless reasons(s) for not providing information and said, information are exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Second appeal submitted by applicant before Hon'ble CIC vide registration no. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604103 which was heard by Page 19 of 32 Hon'ble CIC on 13/02/2025 and an order was passed on 07.04.2025 directing PIO to provide revised information and show cause to appear on 08.05.2023.
In-spite of appearing before Hon'ble CIC, PIO choose to challenge the Order dated 07.04.2025 which is pending before Hon'ble High Court. Even though, on the direction of Hon'ble High Court Delhi in his Order dated 06.05.2025, information provided for certain point(s) is/are not as per information desired.
In the Order dated 07.04.2025, Hon'ble CIC also has decided at para-4 which is reproduced hereunder:
4. After hearing the averment of the respondents and on the perusal of the facts on record, the Commission concludes that undoubtedly, the applicant is misusing the RTI Act to settle personal scores with his former employer.
With humble and folded hand this is to state that applicant is presently an employee of the college and not former employee and file applications under RTI Act only to collect desirable information which is not provided on simple application as an employee and related to applicant. Information sought is necessary to approach at appropriate platform/before higher authority against discriminatory act of Authority of College and thus under Right to Information and being a Citizen of India, applicant file application and not with sole aim to pressurize the college for any demand. For his legitimate demand(s), applicant plan to approach higher authority with documentary proof and documents lies with authority of the college and to collect information, applicant filed application under RTI Act.
The allegations of PIO, Dr. Sachin Mittal, were made in his previous representation and in every further representation submitted before Hon'ble CIC that applicant is habitual RTI applicant and filing RTI application indiscriminately with the college with the sole aim to pressurize the college for his such demands which are neither feasible nor allowed as per rules of Delhi University. All these allegations of PIO were baseless and were stated without any proof to substantiate his allegations.
Page 20 of 32These allegations were made by PIO only to divert his intentions and act of not following RTI rules crushing sole of the Act.
In the previous two appeals of applicant which was registered vide Appel no. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 & CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 and were heard by Hon'ble CIC on 14.06.24 and an Order was passed on 21.06.2024. The presentation of applicant in Appeal CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 which are reproduced hereunder:
2. In reply of point No.2, there is no record of dispatched number as desired in application and replied that it has delivered by hand. Here again question of mismanagement in the office in respect of diary and dispatch number which show that fact is being hide. Here, PIO have misled by hiding the fact in connection with the Officiating Principal that the office of Officiating has delivered the said document to Honorable, Chairman, Governing Body, by hand.
3. In the reply of point number-3, again PIO have supplied a wrong and misleading information about the fact that no information available.
4. In the reply of point number-4 what is asked is not supplied. As information sought is action taken by Officiating Principal on the decision/direction of Honorable Chairman but PIO supplying information related to decision of Chairman, Grievance Committee which is again misleading information.
5. In the reply of point number-5 again same act has been done by PIO ax I have asked information on the action taken by Officiating Principal on the application submitted by applicant in the office while information is being supplied by PIO in case of action taken by Chairman, Grievance Committee on the letter supplied by Deputy Registrar Collegesi. DU vide letter No. CB-
III/149/Grievance/DDU/2023/650 dated 20/09/2023 In the above para-2, PIO had replied that letter is delivered by hand to Chairman, Governing Body, without mentioning date and any record of delivery as desired in Page 21 of 32 application. An official letter delivered to any authority or any employee without any proof of delivery has no authentication of submission of letter.
In the above para-3, PIO had not made any effort in collecting information from Principal/ Chairman Governing Body regarding asked information.
In the above para- 4 & 5, PIO failed, in distinguishing Chairman, Governing Body and Chairman, Grievance Committee and had produced wrong information in his reply while he was a class-1 Officer. As asked for action of Chairman, Governing Body, PIO had replied about the Action of Chairman, Grievance Committee.
All the above facts show that either PIO was negligent towards his duty or had deliberately not provided correct information.
Hon'ble CIC ignored my request on PIO's supplying wrong information by given in the order of Second Appeal the statement CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 which is reproduced hereunder:
9. Furthermore, in the facts of the instant matter, the Appellant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under: The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under
proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished "Emphasis Suppliedi The prayer was not for correction of information, but the presentation was against the act of PIO and his motive of supplying wrong information casually and knowingly. The PIO was liable to penalize for providing wrong information under section-20 of RTI Act as he had knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information without any effort of collecting information from the authority having control on the information desired.Page 22 of 32
The purpose of describing above facts is only to show PIO's mala-fide intention of not providing information and if providing, some wrong information supplied either knowingly or deliberately.
RTI filed by the applicant is genuine and to seek information only when it required and denied by the college in case of information related to applicant itself and in case of those act and decision of authority which are against the rule of law and being implemented in discriminatory manner among the employee and related to transparency and accountability in the functioning of the college.
At many situations application under RTI act is filled due to rigidness of office of FAA, in providing information which comes directly under the control of FAA and office acts only on the direction of FAA as Principal of the College. PIO always quote that "the information are Voluminous and Scattered and are of personal in nature and summarily rejected based on voluminous, scattered and is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) without justification reason(s) violating rules of RTI Act.
The applicant comes before Hon'ble CIC for information only under his constitutional right to have information related to him and/or for those which are in larger public interest so that there is transparency and accountability to be reflected in the functioning of Institution without any targeted and mala-fide intention of authority towards some employee of the college.
Prayer:
Here, PIO as well as FAA both have not performed their duties as per RTI Act-2005 and directions given by Honorable High Courts in various cases in respect of responsibility of PIO/CPIO. Hence, based on facts and extracts of judgements provided here, PIO is to be penalized for his irresponsible act in supplying information under Section-20 of RTI Act and for not performing his duty in a serious manner. Also, FAA has denied his duty as custodian and have violated the norms of RTI Act in deciding Appeal.Page 23 of 32
Therefore, it is a humble request to pass an order against PIO and FAA for their irresponsible acts in supplying information and deciding First Appeal as per Act and direct them to provide desired information. Here it is worth mentioning that the post occupied by both authorities are respectable, responsible and are liable for nurturing society and youth in an honest manner and they are icon for youth/society. They are in such profession who are engaged in developing youth who are future of country and hence their act at such position cannot be justified in any manner for hiding information related to transparency and accountability and are liable to be penalized under section-20 of the Act by imposing penalty of Rs. 250/ per day till the date of entertaining RTI application and up to maximum fine fixed under law and/or any other penalty which Hon'ble CIC deem to fit as per existing law with direction to the PIO to supply all information sought in the application of applicant at earliest."
In response, the respondent submitted that the information sought is voluminous in nature and containing personal information, hence, the same was denied u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, available information on point no. 3 and 5 had been furnished to the appellant. When queried by the Commission regarding late reply, the representative of the CPIO submitted that the reason for late reply will be given as part of the show cause proceedings which the Commission will initiate. When further queried about the contradictory stand being taken by the respondent as initially all information was denied stating that they are voluminous and scattered across files to now claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, the representative of the CPIO did not make any substantial submission. A written submission dated 10.06.2025, of the respondent is reproduced below:-
Point-number (1), (2) and (4) Information is declined as exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act being personal in nature in regard to employees about whom information is sought. Reference is invited to verdict dated 13.11.2019 by Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court (Civil Appeal number 2683, 10044 & 10045 of 2010) in the matter "Central Public Page 24 of 32 Information Officer, Supreme Court versus Subhash Chandra Agrawal" wherein Hon'ble Court while defining parameters for responding to RTI applications, also elaborated exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Point-numbers (3) Information sought at point no 3 has already been provided earlier and is again attached herewith.
Point-numbers (5) No Liaison Officer with name Dr. Rakesh Yadav is/was ever present in the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College. So information relating to any communication made with Dr. Rakesh Yadav does not exist on record of the College.
Point-numbers (6) Reference may be made to response to query (5) above. Furthermore, information is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act being personal in nature in regard to staffers named in communications referred in the query. Reference in this context is invited to Supreme Court verdict dated 03.10.2012 (Special Leave petition -Civil- 27734/2012) in the matter "Girish Ramchandra Deshpande versus Central Information Commissioner and others"
"The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. ..."
It may be further brought to notice of your honour that the petitioner who is an employee of the College is a habitual RTI applicant filing RTI applications indiscriminately with the College with sole aim to pressurize the college-authorities for his such demands which are neither feasible nor allowed as per rules of Delhi Page 25 of 32 University. The petitioner Dr Sanjai Sharma even tried to file a petition routed through University of Delhi in proxy name "Nirmala" in file-number CIC/UODEL/A/2023/631492. (copy of particular page of Second appeal is enclosed for kind ready reference of your honour.
The petitioner is misusing RTI Act by filing so many RTI applications with the College in a regular manner, a tendency held misuse of RTI Act in several verdicts from courts and Central Information Commission. Some of verdicts from Delhi High Court on misuse of RTI Act are:
Verdict dated 08.10.2015 (WPC 7911/2015) in the matter "Rajni Maindiratta versus PIO, Director of Education (North-West B)"
Verdict dated 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar and others"
Verdict dated 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others"
Attention is also drawn to CIC-verdict dated 25.02.2011 in file-number CIC/LS/C/2009/000770-DS in the matter "Dr Rajender K Singla versus Directorate of Higher Education (Chandigarh), decision-part of which is reproduced as hereunder:
Decision
4. After hearing the averment of the respondents and on perusal of the facts on record, the Commission concludes that undoubtedly, the appellant is misusing the RTI Act to settle personal scores with his former employer. The commission rules that such vexatious applications can be summarily dismissed at the level of the CPIO since it is obvious that these applications are not being preferred in public interest and are in fact adversely impacting the functioning of the public authority instead of strengthening it, which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the RTI Act."Page 26 of 32
RTI consultant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal (Mobile number 9810033711) will represent the College before your honour during the CIC-hearing. It is prayed accordingly."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has displayed a rather defiant and arrogant approach in the instant matter as the omission of not having provided any reply to the RTI Application for about 14 months is sought to be conveniently ignored without feeling the need to explain or justify the gross violations on their part. Further, the Commission observes the same pattern of the CPIO replying in 'ONLINE' mode without attaching the relevant reply and the First Appellate Authority adjudicating on the same day. Moreover, detailed reply in both the cases have been furnished only on 10.06.2025 inspite of the CPIO being issued show cause notice in earlier cases vide file no CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604103. Additionally, the observation of the Commission in this case is similar to that made in file no. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604103, wherein the following was observed.
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has displayed a rather defiant and arrogant approach in the instant matter as the omission of not having provided any reply to the RTI Application for about 8 months is sought to be conveniently ignored without feeling the need to explain or justify the gross violations on their part. Rather, overstretching efforts are being made to prove that the Appellant is a repetitive RTI applicant without even relying on any supporting document in this regard and merely harping on the dismissal of two earlier cases of the Appellant heard against them by this bench vide Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 & CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599. It is irksome to note that even in this reliance placed by the CPIO, it has been conveniently ignored that the bench had noted adverse remarks against the same CPIO in both of these cases as well. Nonetheless, to assist Prof. Sachin Mittal, CPIO, in recalling these remarks, the same is reproduced hereunder:Page 27 of 32
Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 "8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that although the factual merits of the information provided by the CPIO cannot be called into question within the confines of the RTI Act, however, the failure of the CPIO to provide a reply to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame of the Act on the pretext of being in the process of creating information to facilitate the Appellant is not warranted. The CPIO ought to provide the information as per the availability of records and is required to strictly adhere to the time stipulations contained in the RTI Act. Further, even if the CPIO intended to facilitate the Appellant, it was incumbent upon the CPIO to have provided an interim reply to the RTI Application while adhering to the time frame prescribed in the Act. To this effect the CPIO is cautioned and advised to remain careful in the future. Furthermore, the Commission also takes exception to the fact that the CPIO failed to serve a copy of their written submissions dated 10.06.2024 to the Appellant in advance as opposed to the directions contained at point no.4 of the notice of hearing issued by the Commission. The CPIO is reminded that in future such omissions will not be viewed liberally."
Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 "8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that although the FAA's order warrants no intervention, the original reply of the CPIO was concededly deficient in terms of the reply provided to points 3, 5 & 6 of the RTI Application as the CPIO failed to specify therein the unavailability of the Diary No. & Date or the factum of unavailability of information sought for at point no.6 in a cogent manner. The CPIO is hereby cautioned against providing vague or incomplete replies in the future and to desist from using abbreviations like N/A in their replies to indicate unavailable information in a non-descript manner and wait for the FAA to describe the abbreviation to the RTI applicants. Further, the Commission also takes exception to the fact that the CPIO failed to serve a copy of their written submissions dated Page 28 of 32 10.06.2024 to the Appellant in advance as opposed to the directions contained at point no.4 of the notice of hearing issued by the Commission. The CPIO is reminded that in future such omissions will not be viewed liberally."
8. The list of omissions being noted on the part of the CPIO is baffling to note ; in addition to the CPIO having caused deemed refusal to provide the information at the original instance; having provided the averred reply incidentally in the aftermath of the averred two earlier appeal(s) listed by the Commission; the Appellant having alleged that the RTI Application was merely disposed of on the online portal on 03.06.2024 without even uploading the reply; the reply thus provided squarely denied the information as being scattered and voluminous without exercising due diligence in perusing the queries to determine the scope of providing permissible and readily available information; further at this stage, the Respondent has even introduced Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny the information again in a square manner as though all of the RTI queries seek personal information of other employees.
9. Adding insult to injury is the order of the FAA which was issued on the same date as that of the CPIO's reply dated 31.05.2024, and the absurd observations made thereunder for disposing the First Appeal is that the CPIO has furnished the reply on 31.05.2024, when the First Appeal was filed on 14.12.2023 alleging non- receipt of any reply of the CPIO within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act.
Such an abhorrent approach of the FAA coupled with the persistent arbitrary stand taken by the CPIO in the instant matter reveals no remorse whatsoever on the part of the Respondent office in having clearly stifled the RTI mandate.
More so, a conjoint observation of the CPIO's past and present conduct and arguments simply suggests a sense of vendetta rather than executing their efforts in Page 29 of 32 setting into motion the RTI regime by ensuring proper disposal of RTI Application(s) & First Appeal(s) filed by the Appellant. Etc..
9. Furthermore, for the sake of brevity, no detailed observation is being recorded in the instant matter and the CPIO is being issued with a show cause notice. Now, therefore, in both the cases, the CPIO, Mr. Kulvinder Singh, is hereby directed to appear in person before the bench on 01.09.2025 at 1.15 pm to show cause case as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him under for each Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for the above noted string of omissions and absolute lack of any sense of statutory responsibility entrusted upon him by virtue of the RTI Act causing a seemingly deliberate obstruction to the Appellant's right to information. Further, All the written explanations/submissions from CPIO covering the above aspects must reach the Commission within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The CPIO is directed to ensure his presence during the hearing in person without fail and to not send his representatives or advocates, as the liability to explain the omissions noted above for imposition of penalty rests with the CPIO. The failure to comply with the directions contained in this order may result in the imposition of ex-parte penalty on the CPIO.
Further, The FAA is also directed to present themselves before the bench on the above said date & time to duly explain the omissions noted on their part while dealing with the instant First Appeals.
10. Further, in file no. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604107, while the Respondent has remained at an absolute loss to justify the denial of the information citing varied yet jumbled reasons so far, it is observed that points 1 & 3 seek for information which is of generic nature, i.e. number of NOC issued to each employee and copy of notification issued to non-teaching staff to mark attendance after 1st January explicitly not featuring or concerning any particular third party but addressing a category of employees in general. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO, Mr. Kulvinder Singh, to furnish a revised reply on the above said point, as per the availability of the records to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
Page 30 of 3211. Further, in file no CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604106, while the Respondent has remained at an absolute loss to justify the denial of the information citing varied yet jumbled reasons so far, it is observed that points 1, 2 & 3 seek for information which is of generic nature, i.e. copy of notification of grievance committee issued for non-teaching staff from 2016 till the filing of the RTI application, communication details and copy of notification issued by the college before opening college, explicitly not featuring or concerning any particular third party but addressing a category of employees in general. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO, Mr. Kulvinder Singh, to furnish a revised reply on the above said points, as per the availability of the records to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With these observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 05.08.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College, (University of Delhi), Sector - 3, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078
2. Dr. Sanjai Sharma Page 31 of 32
3. The FAA Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College, (University of Delhi), Sector - 3, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078
4. The Vice Chansellor (VC) Office of the Vice-Chancellor, , Vice Regal Lodge, University of Delhi, Delhi - 110007 Page 32 of 32 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)