Central Information Commission
Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management ... on 22 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000013/4221
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bogal
1, Hari Nagar Ashram,
Near Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. Ajmer Singh
Public Information Officer Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 01/10/2008 PIO replied : 07/11/2008 First appeal filed on : 10/11/2008 First Appellate Authority order : Not Ordered Second Appeal received on : 06/01/2009 Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought following information regarding appointment, promotions and transfer made by the authority in all the 14 schools run by DSGPC
1) School-wise details of employees appointed & promoted by w.e.f. 9/2/2007 to 15/9/2008 including name, post, date of appointment, dated of confirmation, qualification experience, date of birth, place of transfer with date of transfer.
2) Whether these appointment and promotions were made in accordance with the Chapter III & IV of "Employees Service Regulations 1992" of DSGMC?
3) Copy of recruitment rules made & applicable to all GHPS for appointment & promotions to each category of staff.
4) Details of i) minimum qualification ii) minimum experience and iii) maximum age limit required for appointment to the following post in all the GHPS:
1) Teaching staff 2) Office Assistant 3) Office Clerk 4) Accountant 5) Accountant Clerk 6) any other Admn/Account post.
5) Details of employees presently working who i) do not possess minimum qualification & experience and/or ii) had crossed maximum age limit at the time of their appointment.
6) Whether services of such unqualified employees will be terminated & action against the defaulting appointing authority will be taken?
7) Copy of seniority list of teaching staff, Admn & Accounts cadre staff working in all the GHPS, Institutions & Office of DSGMC.
8) Was it true that the transfer of employees from GHPS-Institutions-office of the DSGMC & vice versa were made either to punish & harass some employees or to favor some employees to get posting of their choice?
9) School-wise details of employees who were appointed after 9/2/2007 but transferred before 15/09/2008 including name, post, date of appointment, date of confirmation, date & place of transfer and name & post of substitute against whom transferred.
10) Under Section 36 of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971,
a) Whether sub-committee also include the Chairman, Manager, Treasurer of al the 14 GHPS mentioned above?
b) Whether any action Section 21 of the IPC has ever been taken against anybody covered under Section 36 of the Act for misappropriation, embezzlement, misuse of funds, illegal appointments & promotions and/or any other reasons since 28/4/1975 i.e. the date of incorporation of DSCMC?
c) Details of above mentioned action if taken.
PIO's Reply:
The PIO has given the information containing in several pages though PIO has not provided point- wise information.
Ground for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of complete information from both the respondents.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal with Mr. Baljit Singh and Mr. Ajai Kumar adv. Respondent: Mr. I.S. Bakshi advocate and Mr. N.S. Badhan, PIO The PIO has given information which the Appellant contends is incomplete. The Respondent sates that he has given a vast amount of information and he believes that it is complete. Since that is a large amount of information the Commission directs the appellant to identify the information which has not been provided and give it to the PIO before 30 July 2009. The PIO will then provide the information identified by the Appellant before 30 August 2009.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the balance information as identified by the Appellant before 30 August 2009.
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 22 July 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SP)