Central Information Commission
Rajeev Chadha vs Directorate Of Education on 4 November, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2018/110119
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/120748
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/138706
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/141107
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/131139
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/131138
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/131137
Shri Rajiv Chadha ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1.PIO/Superintending Engineer-(RTI Cell),
Directorate of Education(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
2. PIO/Dy. Director of Education(SW-A),
Directorate of Education(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
3. PIO/Suptdg. (RTI-Section),
Directorate of Education,(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Shri Anil Kumar, Shri S C Rawat, Shri P
J Jose, Shri R S Pathania, Shri Naresh Kumar
Date of Hearing : 31.10.2019
Date of Decision : 04.11.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
110119 15.09.2017 12.10.2017 17.10.2017 15.11.2017
120748 13.11.2017 02.01.2018 21.12.2017 18.01.2018
138706 17.02.2018 16.03.2018 19.06.2018 08.06.2018
141107 18.06.2018 26.03.2018 25.04.2018 16.05.2018
131139 23.01.2019 12.03.2019 25.03.2019 16.04.2019
131138 07.01.2019 30.01.2019 25.03.2019 16.04.2019
131137 07.01.2019 30.01.2019 25.03.2019 16.04.2019
Page 1 of 8
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DIRED/A/2018/110119 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 15.09.2017seeking information on twelve points regarding a circular no. F. NO. DE-
7/363/Misc/Matter/Vig./HQ/2015/Pt.file/3939 dated 4.7.2017 issued by Vigilance Branch (HQ), Directorate of Education, Delhi. Some of the information sought by him includes the following:-
1. Provide the details of 3905 LTC cases that were sent to CBI for verification. Provide the names of these officials, their designation and office address.
2. How many department of Education employees out of total 3905 LTC cases sent to CBI for verification purchased LTC tickets in r/o Bagdogra/Sikkim (NE) and Port Blair directly from tour operators or private airlines instead of Air India LTC--80 tickets. Provide the names of these employees, their designation and office address.
3. How many DOE employees ---in LTC bill at higher ticket rates as compared and confirmed from the respective private airlines and Air India. Provide the names of these employees, their designation and office addresses. Etc. PIO/APIO(HQ) vide letter dated 12.10.2017 stated as follows:-
"Point Nos. 1 to 8:- The information does not pertain to Vigilance Branch (HQ). Pertains to District Offices.
Point No. 9:- The information has not been asked as per provision to 2(f) of RTI act, 2005.
Point Nos. 10 to 11:- The information does not pertain to Vigilance Branch (HQ). Pertains to District Offices.
Point No. 12:- The information has not been asked as per provision to 2(f) of RTI act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 17.10.2017. FAA vide order dated 15.11.2017 stated that during the first appeal hearing Appellant was not present, hence the case was closed.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/DIRED/A/2018/120748 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 13.11.2017 seekinginformation on nine points regarding his complaint dated 17.11.2015. In this regard, he sought following information:-
Page 2 of 81. What is the present status of his complaint dated 17.11.2015?
2. How many employees/staff members of SBV Naraina 1st Shift whose names are mentioned in his complaint regarding fraudulent LTC claims which were sent to SBI for verification purchased tickets in r/o Bagdogra/Sikkim (NE) and Port Blair directly from tour operators or private airlines instead of Air India LTC--80 tickets. Provide the names of these employees, their designation and office address.
3. How many employees of SBV Naraina 1st Shift, whose names are mentioned in his complaint dated 17.11.2015 regarding fraudulent LTC claims after verification have been found to have claimed in LTC at higher ticket rates as compared and confirmed from the respective private Airlines and Air-Indi. Provide the names of those employees/staff members of SBV Naraina Shift. Etc. PIO/Distt. South West-A, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi vide letter dated 02.01.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.12.2017. FAA vide order dated 18.01.2018 directed ADE/PIO (SW-A) to follow time-line as per RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/DIRED/A/2018/138706 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 17.02.2018 seeking information on seven points about his complaint dated 25.01.2018-
1. Provide the diary no. of the complaint dated 25.01.2018.
2. Provide the daily progress of his complaint dated 25.01.2018.
3. On which date enquiry was conducted into the complaint dated 21.04.2016 by the Directorate of Education after the said complaint was forwarded by the Dy. Commissioner of Police dated 25.01.2018. Etc. PIO vide letter dated 16.03.2018 provided information on Point No. 1 to the Appellant.
In continuation of above mentioned reply, another reply dated 23.03.2018 was also provided as follows:
Point No.1:- Complaint dated 25.01.2018 has been received in this branch through Spl DE (Vig.) Branch and the same is diarized vide No. 923/Vig dated 06.02.2018.
Point No. 2:- The complaint has been forwarded to DDE (SW-A) vide office letter dated 08.02.2018.Page 3 of 8
Point Nos. 3 to 7:- Pertains to office of DDE (SW-A), Dte. Of Education, GNCTD.
Another reply of Asstt. PIO, SW-A vide letter dated 28.04.2018 providing information on Point Nos. 3 to 7 was also sent to the Appellant stating that no enquiry has been conducted on the complaint.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 19.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 08.06.2018 stated that information has already been provided and dismissed the first appeal.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/DIRED/A/2018/141107 Appellantfiled the RTI application dated 18.06.2018 seeking information on three points regarding LTC claims of 303 employees of Government Schools under district South-West A. In this regard, he sought following information:-
1. Provide the certified copy of letter dated 03.11.2015.
2. Provide the details regarding LTC claims of 303 employees of Govt.
Schools under District South-West A. He sought name of the employees, designation of the employees, office address of the employees, place of visit by these employees under LTC. Etc.
3. In how many cases out of the total claims of 303 employees of Government schools under district South- West-A etc. PIO/APIO(HQ) vide letter dated 26.03.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 25.04.2018. FAA vide order dated 16.05.2018 directed PIO/ADE(SW-A) to facilitate inspection and provide information to the Appellant within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of FAO, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(5) CIC/DIRED/A/2018/131139 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 23.01.2019 seeking information on six points:-
1. Provide the diary nos. of the complaints dated 17.07.2018 and 24.07.2018.
2. Provide the certified copies of the action taken report in respect of complaints dated 17.07.2018 and 24.07.2018.
3. Name of the inquiry officer/s, their designation and office addresses who inquired into these complaints.Page 4 of 8
4. Provide the certified copies of the observations and findings of the inquiry officers in the complaints dated 17.07.2018 and 24.07.2018. Etc. PIO/Dy. Director of Education(Zone-20) vide letter dated 12.03.2019 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 25.03.2019. FAA vide order dated 16.04.2019 dismissed the first appeal as the information has already been provided to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(6) CIC/DIRED/A/2019/131138 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 07.01.2019 seeking information on six points regarding his complaint dated 08.03.2018:-
1. Provide the certified copy of the action taken report received by ADE(Vig.), Vigilance Branch, Directorate of Education from DDE(SW-A) in connection of above mentioned complaint.
2. When was the inquiry into the said complaints were done by DDE(SW-A).
3. Name of the inquiry officer/s their designation and office addresses who inquired into these complaints.
4. Provide the copy of the findings of the inquiry officer/s in respect of these complaints. Etc. PIO/APIO(HQ) vide letter dated 30.01.2019 provided information on point no.1 and claimed that points No. 2 to 6 do not pertain to Vigilance Branch(HQ).
Another reply of PIO/Dy. Director of Education(Zone-20) vide letter dated 18.03.2019 stated as follows:-
Point Nos. 1-6:- No such action has been taken from this office.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 25.03.2019. FAA vide order dated 16.04.2019 dismissed the first appeal as the information has already been provided to the Appellant.
(7) CIC/DIRED/A/2019/131137 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 07.01.2019 seeking information on six points regarding his complaint dated 24.03.2018:-
1. Provide the certified copy of the action taken report received by ADE(Vig.), Vigilance Branch, Directorate of Education from DDE(SW-A) in connection of above mentioned complaint.
2. When was the inquiry into the said complaints were done by DDE(SW-A).
3. Name of the inquiry officer/s their designation and office addresses who inquired into these complaints.Page 5 of 8
4. Provide the copy of the findings of the inquiry officer/s in respect of these complaints. Etc. PIO/Suptdg.(Vig.) vide letter dated 30.01.2019 provided information on point no.1 and claimed that points No. 2 to 6 do not pertain to Vigilance Branch(HQ).
Another reply of PIO/Dy. Director of Education(Zone-20) vide letter dated 08.03.2019 stated as follows:-
Point Nos. 1-6:- No such action has been taken from this office.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 25.03.2019. FAA vide order dated 16.04.2019 dismissed the first appeal as the information has already been provided to the Appellant.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present and it appears from the deliberations of both parties that all the cases arise out of the same germane issue and grievance of the appellant, which is the actual reason behind filing these appeals. The appellant submits that he has to face humiliation and unnecessary discrimination and harassment at the hands of the respondent on being defamed on account of some objectionable comments being uploaded on the School's website, where he is employed. He averred during hearing that if the information is available on the website of the Respondent, then he seeks the information in the form of a CD. He admits that he had been provided inspection, but complete information had not been furnished to him by the respondent. It is the appellant's case that the complaints he had filed voicing his objections, are yet to attain a closure and this delay has defeated the very purpose of filing the complaints since most of the old staff relevant for adjudication have either retired or have been transferred.
Respondent states that most of the information about reports pertaining to 303 cases has been put up on the website. Disclosure of the information about the individual teachers was denied on account of objections submitted by the third party/teachers. Answering the appellant's averment about the incomplete action on his complaints, the respondent stated that though the enquiry has concluded, final action in terms of the enquiry report has not been taken as yet.
Respondent has further averred that they are aggrieved due to the vexatious, and multiple RTIs filed by the appellant, which now total more than 70 RTI cases. The respondent has added that the Appellant is such a habitual litigant that he has filed complaints against all the five principals working so far in the school and these cases are filed with the sole objective of harassing the School and the Directorate as such. The respondent has drawn reference to various decisions passed by erstwhile Information Commissioners who have dealt with earlier cases filed by the appellant since 2009, to point out that the appellant has been incessantly filing RTI applications since the inception of the RTI regime.Page 6 of 8
Decision Upon hearing both parties at some length and perusal of the records of the case reveal that the prime issue which forms the bedrock of all of the above appeals is grievance of the Appellant and his dispute with his employer-School on account of some personal grudges. The aim and objective of the appellant in the above appeals is not so much about procuring information, as it is about getting justice. If the Respondent is able to address the Appellant's grievance about the defamatory messages sent about him in 2012, from the school portal, and an appropriate enquiry is conducted, probably the germane issue could be addressed and serve the larger interest.
In so far as the appellant's contentions about his dispute with the School and the Directorate are concerned, such grievance and inter se dispute between employer and employee does not fall within the jurisdictional ambit of the RTI Act.
It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had discussed this issue and held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. ...................... The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither Page 7 of 8 required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
From the above discussion of the facts of the case, it is evident that the Appellant's grievance with his employer which forms the genesis of the above cases, cannot be dealt on merits. The RTI Act, 2005 is designed only for dissemination of available information not for adjudicating inter se dispute/s between parties or to decide the correctness of issues. It is noted that information, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. Hence the Commission wishes to refrain from making any further observation in these cases.
However, before parting with the instant decision, the Commission wishes to remark that though aggrieved, the approach of the appellant in single mindedly pursuing such multifarious litigation is not really the practical and appropriate way to redress his grievance or get justice. A more focussed but limited number of queries or litigation with a specific objective would probably be the more appropriate method of getting the desired result. The appellant's approach of swamping the Respondent by filing an overwhelming number of RTI applications, in fact acts counter- productive to his own objective, creating a web of queries and responses, apart from giving an impression of misuse of the RTI Act. Hence, the appellant is advised to refrain from agitating the same issue repeatedly, lest it draws an adverse observation at some point of time.
The appeals are thus disposed off with these observations.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 8 of 8