Central Information Commission
Dr.Parvez Ahmed vs Ministry Of Environment And Forests on 8 December, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002806/16192
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002806
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Parvez Ahmed
O/o The Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests,
Van Bhawan, Panchkula.
Respondent : Mr. C. M. Sharma
Public Information Officer & Under Secretary
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
O/o The Under Secretary,
Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 07/06/2011
PIO replied : 11/07/2011
First appeal filed on : 01/08/2011
First Appellate Authority order : Not Given
Second Appeal received on : 22/09/2011
Information sought: -
1. Photocopy of cross-examination of PCCF, Haryana as conducted by Committee of Sh. A.K. Shrivastava, IFS & Ms. Shally Ranjan, IFS .with signatures of PCCF, Haryana. Names of witness and their signature in presence of whom the cross- examination was conducted.
2. The signed copy of the statement of PCCF when he represented the State Government before the Committee as mentioned in para--6 of the order of Ministry dated 19-01-2011 in which the charge sheet of Mr. Sanjiv. Chaturvedi, IFS has been quashed.
3. Photocopy of order of constitution of two--member Committee and Terms of Reference of this Committee. Also the copy of order as endorsed in the state of Haryana with date.
4. Photocopy of file noting by Sh. Vijay Kumar, Director, Vigilance, MOEF Government o India.
5. Copy of letters by the Committee to the state of Haryana for conducting the enquiry by two members Committee with names of officers of Haryana who have been indicated in the report, called for the enquiry.
6. Procedure of enquiry as adopted by the two members Committee.
PIO response:-
(a) & (b):- It concerns l.G. (WL) as the Enquiry Authority and he is being requested to furnish the information directly to you.
(c): - A copy of the Order is enclosed with amendment.
(d):- Director (Vig.) is being requested to furnish the requisite information directly to you.
(e) & (f):- It concerns 1G. (WL) as the Enquiry Authority and he is being requested to furnish the information directly to you.Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information was given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order had passed by First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received by the Appellant and no order had passed by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. C. M. Sharma, Public Information Officer & Under Secretary;
The respondent states that he has provided all the information available as per records in 286 pages. The respondent states that the First Appellate Authority had also offered an opportunity of inspecting the documents which the Appellant has not taken.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records appears to have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 08 December 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 2 of 2