Central Information Commission
Mr. Umesh Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 10 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000353/17770Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000353
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Umesh Gupta
R/o: 106, Darya Ganj,
Near Delhi Medical Association Hall,
Delhi - 110002.
Respondent 1- Mr. Sushil Kumar
Public Information Officer & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o The Superintending Engineer-I Shahdara (South) Zone, Karkardooma, Delhi - 110032.
2- Ms. Alka R. Sharma
Dy, Commissioner & FAA
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
O/o the Dy. Commissioner
Zonal Office, Shahdara (South) Zone,
Karkardooma, Delhi - 110032.
3- Mr. Arun Kumar
The then PIO/SE-I (Shahdara South Zone)
Presently SE(Special Project)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Ambedkar Stadium,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 24/07/2011
PIO replied : no information
First appeal filed on : 14/09/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 22/11/2011
Second Appeal received on : 25/01/2012
Information Sought:
Provide information regarding Mr. Kumar Mahindra currently working as Assistant Engineer (M)-I, Shahdara South Zone.
1. Date of Birth.
2. Date of joining in MCD.
3. Departments where he was posted (including period of serving).
4. Posts held since date of appointment (with each period).
5. Works assigned to him at different periods.
6. Please provide the copy of Educational Qualification i.e., 10th, 12th, passing certificates copy.
Page 1 of 47. Please provide the copy of Degree/Diploma.
8. Please provide the appointment letter copy.
9. Mr. Kumar Mahindra was selected in MCD as a job of Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer.
10. If he belongs to any reserved quota, then please provide the copy.
11. Where Mr. Kumar Mahindra served before joining the MCD, please provide the details with the Experience copy.
12. Please provide the details of Mr. Kumar Mahindra assets from the date of joining MCD till today on yearly basis.
13. Please provide the copy of last 10 years Income Tax Return Copy with departmental Income calculate/Assessment form copy.
14. Please provide the information about Mr. Kumar Mahindra on which date he get regularized as AE.
15. If he joins MCD as an JE then please provide the promotion copy to Assistant Engineer. Whether he is on regular basis or adhoc basis or look after basis.
16. How many RDA is pending & issued from last 10 years against him, please provide the details (number, date of issue, actions taken). Please provide the complaint and action / charge sheet copy. (also include the details of RDA accomplished /finalized).
17. Please provide the details of Conveyance allowance (amount).
18. Mr. Kumar Mahindra is entitling for two wheeler/ four wheeler conveyance. Please provide the details.
19. Please provide the details that Mr. Kumar Mahindra is using a Car No. DL-7C L 3812, that information is with Department/ MCD or not.
20. Please provide the details of Mr. Kumar Mahindra salary including all allowances.
21. Please provide the details where his children's are studying (school name, class) with their fees and transportation.
22. Whether Mr. Kumar Mahindra gets allowances for children Education (tuition reimburses). If yes, then how much and by which criteria.
23. Please provide the details of Mrs. Mahindra, whether she is house wife. If not, then where she is serving/ business. Please provide the details with accompany name, designation and salary.
24. Whether the MCD employ get allowances for children Education. If yes, then how much and by which criteria.
25. Whether the criteria for Conveyance allowance of Assistant Engineer. Please provide the details.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. No information was provided.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was provided to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"PIO is directed to supply the available information as per points/questions asked within 20 days free of cost".
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
"No information by PIO after directions of FAA".
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 19/03/2012:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Umesh Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. D. K. Gupta, AE on behalf of Mr. Sushil Kumar, PIO & SE-I;
"The Appellant had filed his RTI application online on 24/07/2011 id no. 32614 addressed to PIO/SE-I, Shahdara South Zone. He has not received any information so far. The Respondent claims that Page 2 of 4 a reply was sent to the Appellant stating that no information is available. The Respondent admits that there is an AE named Mr. Kumar Mahendra working in maintenance division and that the information sought would be available with AO(Engineering). The PIO has not sought the assistance of any one nor transferred the RTI application and despite the order of the FAA no information has been provided to the Appellant."
Decision dated 19/03/2012:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to obtain the information and send it to the Appellant before 15 April 2012.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO/SE-I within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
PIO/SE-I will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 16 April 2012 at 12.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons."
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 16/04/2012:
Respondent: Mr. Sushil Kumar, PIO & SE-I and Mr. Kumar Mahendra, AE;
"The PIO Mr. Sushil Kumar has submitted his written submissions, wherein it is stated that the RTI application dated 24/07/2011 was never received in his office. It is also stated that no intimation of hearing dated 17/11/2011 before the FAA was received in his office. In this regard he has submitted a copy of noting by the then PIO & SE-I dated 08/12/2011. He has further stated that since the RTI application dated 24/07/2011 was not available in his office, the FAA's order dated 22/11/2011 could not be complied with. After the Commission's order dated 19/03/2012, the information was sent to the Appellant through speed post on 07/04/2012 but the same was received back in his office mentioning that 'No such person/firm in this location' .
The Respondent states that he never received the RTI application. He has also produced before the Commission a photocopy of the file noting of SE-I Shahdara South Mr. Arun Kumar of 08/12/2011 in which it has been stated that the notice of hearing for the FAA's order had not been received hence no representative was present during he hearing on behalf of the PIO. However, this noting states that the orders of the FAA are attached. The Respondent states that the RTI application was not attached and hence the order of the FAA could not be implemented.
This is showing a very serious problem in the working of the Public Authority. Mrs. Alka R. Sharma, Dy. Commissioner & FAA had passed an order on 22/11/2011 directing the PIO to send the information Page 3 of 4 within 20 days. However, this order was not implemented and stand taken by the PIO appears to be that the RTI application was not sent to him and therefore the FAA had not sent an order which could be implemented.
The Commission therefore in exercise of its powers under Section 18 of the RTI Act summons the First appellate Authority Mrs. Alka R. Sharma and the then PIO Mr. Arun Kumar to appear before the Commission on 10 May 2012 at 04.30PM to explain their actions and to help the Commission to fix the responsibility for not supplying the information to the Appellant. The Respondent also states that the RTI application had been filed with SE(Project) Shahdara south Zone on 24/07/2011. The Commission therefore directs the First appellate Authority to bring the PIO SE(Project) Shahdara South Zone who was responsible on 24/07/2011 to the Commission to understand why the RTI application had not been replied to."
Adjunct Decision dated 16/04/2012:
"The Commission directs the First Appellate Authority Mrs. Alka R. Sharma and Mr. Arun Kumar the then PIO to appear before the Commission on 10 May 2012 at 04.30PM alongwith the official(s) responsible for not providing the information as directed above."
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 10/05/2012:
Respondent: Mrs. Alka R. Sharma, DC(Sh. South Zone) & FAA; and Mr. Arun Kumar, the then PIO/SE-I(Sh. South Zone);
The PIO and the FAA has stated that the RTI application was filed online with SE(Project) and was never received by PIO/SE-I Sh. South Zone. Because of certain glitches the notice of hearing sent by the FAA also did not reach the PIO. The FAA who was newly posted did not realize that the RTI application had been addressed to SE(Project) who has a separate FAA. The PIO/SE-I states that when he received the FAA's order he was unable to implement it since he never had the RTI application. It appears that lack of a proper system within MCD has resulted in the information not been supplied to the Appellant and it is difficult to pinpoint responsibility on any one individual officer for this. In view of this the Commission drops the Penalty proceedings and closes the matter at the Commission's end.
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 10 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG):Page 4 of 4