Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anirudh Kumar Pandey vs Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti on 2 December, 2016

         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                (Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)


              Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
                                  Central Information Commissioner

                                  CIC/SA/A/2015/001701

           Anirudh Kumar Pandey v. Nayodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
                                     Important Dates and time taken:



     RTI/PIO: 19-5/15-6-15(27)      FAA Order: 22-7-2015                2nd Appeal: 5-10-2015

     Closed                         Hearing: 29-11-2016                 Decided on: 29-11-2016



Parties Present:

1.       Appellant: VC not connected

         Public authority: J K Raju, S.O. and Surya Prakash, S.O. (E-I)

FACTS:

2. The appellant filed RTI application and sought information regarding complaints mentioned in preliminary inquiry in memorandum dated 08.01.2015 issued by disciplinary authority along with address of complainant, etc. PIO held that the information sought by the appellant is personal information under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and is exempted from disclosure which was upheld by FAA. Appellant approached this Commission.

Decision:

3. The representatives of the public authority alleged that instead of facing the inquiry initiated by the department, the appellant is trying to build pressure against the enquiry by filing RTI applications. The appellant wants to have a copy of complaint along with details of complainant. The PIO stated that the charge sheet was based on information from external sources and preliminary investigation. The PIO stated that charge sheet is a comprehensive document indicating the basis of the charge, and he apprehended physical threat to the Page 1 complainant and denied that part of the information. He also stated that the charge sheet was given to him along with all relevant documents. He alleged that instead of facilitating the inquiry the appellant is trying to use RTI to delay the inquiry. The inquiry is already delayed by more than a year.

4. The PIO submits that the complainant is an external source and as per the copy of the chargesheet submitted before the Commission, the complainant is not included in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet against Sh. A.K. Pandey.

5. The Commission recommends the public authority to complete the inquiry as soon as possible by following the rules of the inquiry and advices the appellant to cooperate with the inquiry. Hence, closed.

SD/-

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO under RTI, RTI Cell, Govt of India Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector-62, NOIDA-201207
2. Shri Anirudh Kumar Pandey Jawahar Navodyaya Vidhyalaya BNring Khera PO Killianwali Tehsil, Malout LUKTSAR-151211 Punjab.

Page 2