Central Information Commission
Rahul Dev Madan vs Gnctd on 20 October, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/124519 -UM
Mr. Rahul Dev Madan
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Ch. Brahm Prakash
Ayurved Charak Sansthan, Khera Dabar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110073
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.10.2022
Date of Decision : 18.10.2022
Date of RTI application 31.01.2022
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 03.02.2022
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 24.05.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 18 points, as under:-
Page 1 of 3ETC.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rahul Dev Madan attended the hearing in person. Respondent: Dr. Bharat Bhoyar attended the hearing.Page 2 of 3
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding incident in which Mr. Puranmal's attendant fell on the ground floor due to sudden halt of lift and related issues. He submitted that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He said due to the above incident his service was terminated by the department and he needs this information to support his case and get justice . He said the CPIO is making mockery of the provisions of RTI act 2005 and indulging in only a formality and giving misinformation. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information. The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 19.01.2022, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. He stated at that time the maintenance work of the lift was being done by DSIIDC and the appellant was discharged due to negligence on his part. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said. In response the appellant said his services were terminated because he was outspoken when it came to employees rights which the authorities didn't like and therefore the action was taken with an ulterior motive and not on merit.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a correct and detailed revised reply to the Appellant and if needed, collect the information from the concerned department, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 18.10.2022 Page 3 of 3