Central Information Commission
Niharika Puhan vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 8 November, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागं गनाथमागग , मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DSSSB/A/2020/679215
Niharika Puhan .....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Deputy Secretary-(RTI Cell),
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
(Government ofNCT of Delhi),
RTI/Administration Section,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
...प्रद्वतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.08.2019
CPIO replied on : 03.09.2019
First appeal filed on : 18.09.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 13.01.2020
Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil
Date of Hearing : 26.10.2021
Date of Decision : 26.10.2021
सूचनाआयुक्त: श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information:
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 03.09.2019, as under:
Dissatisfied with the reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18-09-2019.
FAA, vide order dated 13.01.2020, held as under:
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 13.10.2021, as under:Page 2 of 4
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not providedcorrect information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Represented by Adv. Yashaswisk Chocksey, present.
Respondent: Mr. Manoj, PIO, SO, DSSSB, present.
Reptt. Of Appellant stated that relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, has not been furnished to him. He further requested the Commission that information be furnished to him.
PIO submitted a revised reply, vide letter dated 13.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.
A copy of revised reply, along with annexure, vide letter dated 13.10.2021, was duly furnished to the Appellant during the course of hearing before the Commission.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and observes that initial reply provided by the Respondent Authority was incorrect. However, Commission takes a lenient view over the said conduct owning to the justification laid down by the PIO in the written submission dated 13.10.2021 as well as submissions made during the course of hearing, copy of the written submission is furnished to the appellant during the course of hearing. Moreover, Commission in its earlier decisions has already reprimanded the Respondent Authority for their said conduct. In view of the going no penal action is warranted against the erring PIO in the instant matter. Further, reply provided by the PIO vide letter dated 13.10.2021 is appropriate and same is upheld. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 .
Page 4 of 4