Central Information Commission
Dr N Sakthivel vs Pondicherry University on 23 April, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/PONDU/A/2018/633865/03271
File no.: CIC/PONDU/A/2018/633865
In the matter of:
Dr. N Sakthivel
... Appellant
VS
Asst. Registrar (Estt.) & CPIO
Pondicherry Univesity,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Admn. Building,
R.V. Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 06/06/2018 CPIO replied on : 16/07/2018 First appeal filed on : 01/08/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 30/08/2018 Second Appeal dated : 19/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 22/04/2020 Date of Decision : 22/04/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Shri Mahesh, Assistant Registrar and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
Proofs and evidences regarding the following academic misconducts of Dr. V. Arul, Department of Biotechnology, Pondicherry University have been submitted to Pondicherry University and verified by the authorities. In respect of the same he has sought the following information:
1. Whether University asked for explanation/remarks on above complaints to Arul? Provide copy.
2. Dr. V Arul's explanation to University for each complaints. Provide copy.1
3. If no explanation was given by Dr. Arul, how many reminders were sent. Provide copy.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the reply provided to him is incomplete and misleading. He further objected to the CPIO's reply who had stated that queries, E and F are not categorical type of questions. Pondicherry University authorities have repeatedly confirmed the unauthorized absence period of Dr. V. Arul, Department of Biotechnology who failed to report for duty and furthermore was involved in other academic misconducts such as incomplete teaching, inappropriately conducting examinations in absentia. Even after University warning and repeated academic violations, during this claim period, Dr. V. Arul was promoted to the post of "Professor" through Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) on 04.12.2017 with retrospective effect from 20.04.2013. As per UGC and Pondicherry University, the CAS promotion is entirely based on Academic Performance Indicator (API) score. In this case, he wanted to know how the unauthorized absence period of Dr. V. Arul was considered in his service? How this unauthorized absence period was considered for claiming salary and promotion? Therefore, he requested Pondicherry University to provide him the details of their action taken on the unauthorized absence period in service and promotion. In order to protect the right and to maintain the quality in higher education system, he requested the Commission to take necessary steps and direct the Pondicherry University for action and to provide him the required information as sought in his RTI application.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the written submission dated 30.03.2020 and submitted that based on the RTI request of the applicant all documents were compiled and a letter was sent on 04.07.2018 to the appellant to remit an amount of Rs 52/- as photocopying charges. On receipt of the charges the photocopies containing 26 pages were sent to him on 16.07.2018. However categorical questions raised in the application like "How, Whether, Why" does not fall under "information". He further summed up stating that all available information was already provided. He also added that as the FAA vide order 2 dated 30.08.2018 had directed to provide additional information. In compliance with the same on 17.09.2018 it was informed to the applicant that there is no additional information available in the Section. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the information sought in points E & F of the RTI Act are queries in nature and not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, the written submissions dated 30.03.2020 given to the Commission by the resjpondent should have been shared with the appellant to help him understand that categorical questions are not information within the definition of Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The CPIO is accordingly directed to send a copy of the written submissions dated 30.03.2020 to the appellant within 2 days through e-mail. No further action is required in the present case as information sought in points E & F is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3