Central Information Commission
Mr.Anil Kumarchopra vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 4 November, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002057
Date of Hearing : November 4, 2011
Date of Decision : November 4, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Anil Kumar Chopra
202 Kothari Hostel
Inmas Campus
Lucknow Road
Timarpur
Delhi 110 054
The Applicant was present along with Ms.Ira Chopra during the hearing
Respondents
Directorate of Education
O/o DDE(North)
Lucknow Road
Delhi 110 054
Represented by : Shri R.P.Yadava, PIO
Shri Naveen Dutt Sharma, UDC
Ms.Sushma J. Toppo, Principal
Dr.S.M.S.Kujen, E.O 7
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002057
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.23.5.11 with the PIO, Directorate of Education, GNCTD seeking information against nine points including information on the action taken on his complaint dt.15.4.11, action taken report on the violation of conduct rules by Shri N.D.Sharma, LDC, SKV, Timarpur bypassing all the official channels and seniors while writing directly to the senior most officer without the knowledge of Mrs.Sushila Garg, HOS, a certified copy of the complaint on record of Delhi administration sent by Shri N.D.Sharma against the Applicant, a certified copy of the response/noting given by Mrs.Sushila Garg on the complaint made by Shri N.D.Sharma against the Applicant, a copy of proof if any from Shri N.D.Sharma in support of alleged threatening done by the Applicant, a certified copy of the RTI filed by Shri N.D.Sharma against the Applicant. The PIO replied on 25.6.11 enclosing the information provided by education Officer, Zone7 against points 1 and 2 and enclosing the reply furnished by the Vice principal against the remaining queries. Not satisfied with the repies, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.4.7.11 with the Appellate Authority commenting on the information provided and reiterating his request for the information. Ms.Shashi Kaushal, Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide her order dt.3.8.11 upholding the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.10.8.11 before CIC. Decision
2. The Commission reviewed the point wise information sought by the Appellant except and decided as given below:
Point 1 The Respondents submitted that the Commission has already decided the matter raised in this point in case No.CIC/AD/A/2011/002012 dt.1.11.11 and that in compliance with the Commission's order an enquiry report has already been prepared but the same has been sent back to the Enquiry Officer to make necessary corrections as some shortcomings were noted in the report. The Respondents added that the complaint in the instant case as also all other complaints lodged by the Appellant have been taken into consideration while conducting the enquiry.
It is therefore directed that the PIO provide the report to the Appellant within 20 days of receipt of this order.
Point 2 The Commission directs the PIO to formally inform the Appellant in writing that no action has been taken by the Director (Delhi Administration nor the DDE (North) against Mr. N.D. Sharma for the alleged violation of conduct rules.
Points 3 and 4 The Commission directs the PIO to allow inspection of relevant records by the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time and to provide him with attested copies of documents identified by him, including a copy of the complaint filed by Mr. Sharma, ( denial of complaint under Section 8(1)
(g) is not justified as the identity of the person who has complained as also the contents of the complaint are already known to the Appellant) on payment of Rs.2/ per page. The total amount of additional fees to be paid to be intimated to the Appellant in advance and the documents to be provided only on receipt of additional fees.
Point 5 The Commission directs the PIO to formally inform the Appellant in writing that no such information is available on record.
Point 6 The PIO is directed to transfer the copy of the RTI Application to DRDO with the direction to respond to the point .
Points 7 to 9 The Commission holds that information sought against these queries does not comply with he definition of 'information' as given u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Information may be provided by 4.12.11 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 11.12.11.
3. The Appellant complained that the Public Authority for whom his wife is working is harassing his wife since he has filed the RTI Application. He produced a letter written by the concerned Public Authority to his wife seeking clarification about some complaints filed by her. The Commission on review of the information sought in the letter by the Public Authority from the wife of the Appellant noted that the questions posed in the communication are routine questions posed by any Administration to an employee while seeking clarification on an issue and is unable to construe from the letter that the Appellant's wife is being harassed because her husband has filed RTI Applications. Hence the Commission holds that the complaint of the Appellant is not tenable.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Anil Kumar Chopra 202 Kothari Hostel Inmas Campus Lucknow Road Timarpur Delhi 110 054
2. The Public Information Officer Directorate of Education O/o DDE(North) Lucknow Road Delhi 110 054
3. The Appellate Authority O/o Regional Director (C/W) Directorate of Education, 2nd Floor Sarvodaya Vidyalaya Building Lucknow Road, Timarpur Delhi 110 054
4. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission's decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.