Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Bharti Gupta vs Directorate Of Education on 22 January, 2026

                                   के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


िशकायत सं या /Complaint No. CIC/DIRED/C/2024/121950

Bharati Gupta                                                        ...िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                          VERSUS/बनाम

CPIO, Directorate of Education, Delhi                                 ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Date of Hearing               :      07.01.2026
Date of Decision              :      20.01.2026

 Chief Information Commissioner : Raj Kumar Goyal

 Relevant dates:
 RTI application filed on      :       10.04.2024
 PIO replied on                :       -
 First Appeal filed on         :       28.05.2024
 First Appellate Order on      :       -
 2ndAppeal/complaint           :       02.07.2024
 received on

 Information sought

and background of the case:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2024 before the PIO, Directorate of Education, GNCTD, seeking the following information about her complaint dated 05.02.2024:

"1. Please provide the Name (s) of the officer (s), to whom my complaint dated :05/02/24 given to Secretary of Education (Sh. Ashok Kumar) at Diary No 30214 and to Director of Education at Diary No.629, was marked and please give the Name (s) of the officer (s), who would take the action on my complaint.

2. Please provide me the certified copy of any action which has been taken, till date by the concerned authorities or concerned department, or concerned officer after the expiry of two months of my complaint.

3. Please provide me the certified copies of action taken or inquiry report prepared by the Director and Secretary of Education, if any action was taken by competent authorities on my complaint till date. Please provide me all the certified copies of this.

4. Please provide me the certified copies of any action if was taken because there are many Serious complaint against Vice Principal Roormal Meena/ R.M. Meena (Emp. I.D-19920014), School G.B.S.S. School Prem Nagar, Patel Nagar, N.Delhi-110008,distt. West-A, and he is on Anticipatory bail since 16 January 2023 and as per records provided by the complainant, please see Annexure -7 at page no.16, 17, 18 of the complaint, where the anticipatory bail was not granted by the court, for this accused Roormal Meena / R.M. Meena (Emp. I.D- 19920014), and he has to taken the court bail as per order dated: who would take the action and when this action or action would be taken by any authorities concerned.

5. Why this R.M.Meena (accused person of two criminal court cases) has not been suspended by Director or Secretary of Education or Minister of Education. Please provide me this information in this regard. And also provide me the reasons for not taking any action against this R.M.Meena (accused person of two criminal court cases).

6. Please provide me the certified copies of any other strict action report is prepared by concerned deptt., because there are many Serious complaint against Vice Principal Roormal Meena/R.M.Meena (Emp. I.D-19920014), School: G.B.S.S. School Prem Nagar, Patel Nagar, N.Delhi-110008, distt. West- A, and two FIR'S -i.e. criminal FIR No. 378/2022 and criminal FIR No. 722/2022 had been registered against this accused vice principal for looting, attacking beating, attempt modesty of a to murder outraged the two in women etc along with his criminal sons their prosecution is going on in Tis Hazari Courts, (see the both FIR's complaint at Annexure -5 page no.10,11,12) and at Annexure-6 page no.13,14,15), till date what action has been taken against this errant /criminal vice principal please provide the copy of that action as per information act.

7. Any other information, relating documents against this criminal vice principal, which was a punitive one, and is taken by department concerned, may be provided as an information. Kindly sent to me for /of his many forgery and frivolous/ false service records in which in he has attended the police inquiries, court's proceedings. Besides his attendance in the court, R.M. Meena is side by side attending the school duties (making his false attendance due to the connivance with the school staff, due to working as a HOS) so, the concerned department has made any inquiry in this regard/concerned and can provide me, the certified copies of this inquiry report etc please provide me the information of that reports, all inquiry reports may be sent to me and provided to me.

8. Has the concerned department took any disciplinary, strict and prompt action as per CCS rule and as per the relevant sections of criminal act and omission of Indian Penal Code- 1860, and also on the basis of the corruptions and dereliction of duties as to a dishonest and in-sincere government servant of 'The Directorate of Education/Govt. School' if it has been taken kindly provide me all the information.

9. The definition of the section- 2F, of RTI Act says "information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinion, advices, press releases, circular, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data materials hold in any electronic form and information related to any conduct rules of the concerned department and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authorities under any other law for the time being in force."

10. Please provide the status of action taken against accused: Sanjay Kumar S/o accused Roor Mal Meena, who is working as a teacher in MCPS MCD Primary School, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Jahangir Puri, H- II against whom two FIR's have been registered. What action has been taken by the concerned department, please provide the true certified copies.

11. Vice principal Roor Mal Meena and his son Sanjay Meena are both employee teachers of Department of Edu. GNCT of Delhi and it is the responsibility of the concerned department to take strict action against these accused employees. Please provide me what type of action has been taken against both of these employees...."

[reproduced verbatim]

2. Aggrieved by non-receipt of a reply from the PIO, the Complainant filed the First Appeal dated 28.05.2024.

3. Dissatisfied with the non adjudication of the First Appeal, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in course of Hearing:

4. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

5. The Respondent - DDE Zone-1, Link Officer has sent a letter dated 20.12.2025, seeking time for filing ATR/Compliance report, due to the sudden demise of the DDE Zone-16/PIO, District West-A on 17.12.2025.

6. The PIO(HQ)/DDE subsequently submitted a covering letter dated 29.12.2025, along with written submission/counter statement dated 19.12.2025 received from the SO, Vigilance Branch(HQ) stating as under:

"In this regard, it is informed that the contents of the said RTI No. 36659 does not pertain to Vigilance Branch (HQ) and reply with respect to the said RTI has already been provided to the Appellant vide this office letter No. DE.7/91/VPL/RTI/VIG/HQ/2023/104 dated 02/09/2024 (copy enclosed).

Further, with respect to the complaint against Sh. Roor Mal Meena, Vice Principal (Retd.), the vigilance status at the level of Vigilance Branch (HQ) is as under: -

As per available record, No DP is pending. However

1. A complaint against Sh. Roor Mal meena, Vice Principal, made by Sh.

Ramesh Gupta, TGT Drawing was forwarded by Vigilance Branch to the DDE (West-A) vide letter no. DE. 7/08/Comp./VPL/Vig./ (HQ)/P.file/2022/951 dated 28.03.2022 for appropriate action.

2. An FIR No. 0378/22 dated 06.05.2022 U/s 323/341/506/354B/354/509/ 356/379/34 of IPC has been registered in PS Moti Nagar against Sh. Roor Mal meena, Vice Principal and vide this office letter dated 18/08/2023 and subsequent reminder dated 16/11/2023, the DCP (West) and SHO (Moti Nagar) were Complaint No. CIC/DIRED/C/2024/121950 Page 3 of 6 requested to provide the current status of the FIR. However, no information has been received as per available record.

3. An FIR No. 0722/22 dated 29.11.2022 U/s 354 (D)/506/509/34 of IPC has been registered in PS Karol Bagh against Sh. Roor Mal Meena, Vice Principal and vide this office letter dated 16/11/2023, the DCP (Central) and SHO (Karol Bagh) were requested to provide the current status of the FIR. However, no information has been received as per available record.

4. A complaint dated 05/02/2024 against Sh. Roor Mal Meena, Vice Principal (Retd.) made by Ms. Bharti Gupta was forwarded to District West-A vide this office letter No. DE.7/213/VPL/Vig./(HQ)/2022/783 dated 20.02.2024 for appropriate action [reproduced verbatim] A copy of the written submission/counter statement has been sent to the Complainant.

7. The PIO(HQ)/DDE has submitted another covering letter dated 02.01.2026 once again submitting the written submission dated 19.12.2025 from the SO, Vigilance Branch(HQ) as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Complainant: Not present.

Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Joshi- PIO/DDE(RTI), Mr. Shashi Kant Singh - DDE, West-A, Mr. Jainendra Kumar - SO(Z-16), Mr. A K Ojha - ASO, Dte. Of Education and Dr. Sabya Sachin - HoS, GBSS School, Prem Nagar were present.

8. The Respondents relied upon the aforementioned written submission/counter statement dated 19.12.2025, stating that the information was never denied to the Complainant. The Respondent contended that the Complainant had even been requested to visit the Respondent's office and inspect the records to take copies of documents sought by her, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act. It is evident from the written submission dated 19.12.2025 and the submissions made by the Respondent during hearing that action had been taken on the complaint dated 05.02.2024 filed by the Complainant against Sh. Roor Mal Meena- Vice Principal (Retd.) and the Complainant had been duly apprised about the action taken. The Complainant had been duly informed by the Section officer, Vigilance that the matter pertained to DDE(West-A), Dte. Of Education, GNCTD. The voluminous documents submitted by the Respondent on 29.12.2025 and again on 02.01.2026 have been duly marked to the Complainant, who has chosen neither to contest the case in person during hearing, nor has she submitted any counter statement.

Decision

9. Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the Respondents, it is noted that the information had been furnished to the Complainant, from available records informing her about the action taken on the complaints filed against Sh. Roor Mal Meena- Vice Principal (Retd). Thus no case of deliberate or wilful concealment of information is observed in this case. The Complainant has not submitted any objection with respect to the information provided to her. However, the Commission is unable to overlook the lapse on the part of the FAA, in not adjudicating the First Appeal, thereby rendering the first stage of examination of facts at the appellate stage redundant. Such conduct on the part of the FAA is unacceptable and the FAA is cautioned to be diligent in adjudication of the First Appeals in future.

10. The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information.

11. Records of the case reveals that the Respondent has submitted documentary evidence indicating the information furnished to the Complainant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, which has not been contested by the Complainant. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information can be found in this case. The scope and ambit of proceedings under provisions of Section 18 of the RTI Act are limited and has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:

"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."

12. Considering that the Complainant has chosen not to contest the case either in person or through any written submission/counter statement, the Commission is of the opinion that no legal infirmity could be found in the information provided by the Respondent and no case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent has been made out. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required in this case.

The case is disposed off in terms of the above.

Sd/-

Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Complaint No. CIC/DIRED/C/2024/121950 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)