Central Information Commission
Jata Shankar Jha vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 7 February, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2018/149615
Shri Jata Shankar Jha ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Dy. Secretary (RTI Cell), ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
DSSSB, Karkardooma, Delhi
Through: Shri Krishna Kanth, Sr. System Analyst
Date of Hearing : 06.02.2020
Date of Decision : 07.02.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.04.2018
PIO replied on : Nil
First Appeal filed on : 11.06.2018
First Appellate Order on : Nil
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 08.08.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.04.2018 seeking information on the following 04 points:
1. Provide Action Taken Report through email/registered post received from DSSSB towards grievance lodged for delay processing of Virgo Softech Ltd. For examination conducted towards outstanding payment pending for more than 5 years and also quote tentative date of release of outstanding payment of Virgo Softech Ltd.
2. Is there any applicable interest payable to company for delay processing from DSSSB?
3. Grievance number 201639845 is showing disposed off by DSSSB however customer feedback acknowledged from CM helpline that complainant is totally frustrated. However you took any corrective action against DSSSB for opening of grievance again.
4. Is there any time frame to give response to complainant towards complaint lodge you are requested to expedite this process and make available all the copies of information.
[Queries are verbatim] Page 1 of 2 Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 11.06.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present during hearing. Respondent has submitted documents during the course of hearing and has admitted that reply to the RTI Application had not been provided earlier out of sheer inadvertence. The reply, however, was provided to the PGMS complaint/grievance filed by the appellant. The FAA's order dated 01.11.2018 now produced by the Appellant has not been annexed with the Second Appeal, since it was received after filing of the Second Appeal and it reveals that despite the directions of the FAA, the PIO has not complied with the directions of the FAA.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records produced during hearing and examining the averments of the parties, it is evident that there has been a) delay in response to the RTI application and b)non-compliance of the FAA's specific directions. The response has been given by the respondent to the PGMS Complaint but considering violation of the tenets of the RTI Act, explanation is called from the PIO for not complying with the specific directions of Appellate Authority and not maintaining the mandated timeline, in clear violation of the RTI Act. The explanation must reach the Commission by 28.02.2020, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated as per provisions of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
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 2 of 2