Central Information Commission
Aman Bahl vs Directorate Of Education on 17 October, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No. CIC/DIRED/A/2017/107270
Date of Hearing : 04.09.2017
Date of Decision : 13.10.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Aman Bahl
Respondent : PIO
Assistant Director of Education-
South
GNCTD
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.10.2016
PIO replied on : 28.11.2016
First Appeal filed on : 13.12.2016
First Appellate Order on : 19.01.2017
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 01.02.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
The appellant sought information regarding the Mirambika Free Progress School, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. The school was recognised on 05.01.1989 by Directorate of Education, Delhi and started functioning from Sri Aurobindo Ashram premises. Thereafter, it was shifted from ashram to new building claimed to be on Ashram Freehold land on 01.07.2015. As required under Delhi Right to Education Rules and DSAER rules, 1973 the society (SAES) ought to have submitted the document to the DOE for Freehold Land. Through the present RTI application, the Appellant sought the documents as submitted by the school to DOE for Freehold Land as well as incidental information thereto on 09 points. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.11.2016 stated that with regard to question no. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 information /document were not available in the office and as regards the rest, the information was not made available as the recognition file was under submission to Head Quarter, Dte. of Education, Delhi. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA directed the PIO/ADE(S) to locate the file and directed to furnish revised reply within 10 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance, the appellant approached the Commission.Page 1 of 7
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard at length. Appellant is assisted by Shri Suman Doval, Advocate. The grievance of Appellant is with respect to the alleged misconduct and violation of rules committed by the management of Mirambika Free Progress School, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi with tacit aid of officials of Directorate of Education Delhi. The Appellant states that the file in question containing requisite information was available in the directorate but to withhold the information, an excuse regarding non traceability of the file was made. To give a background of the matter as well as to discard the reply of PIO w.r.t. non availability of file concerned, the Appellant relies on a note signed by the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi in the foregoing context. The same is reproduced in entirety as follows:
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF MINISTER GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI DELHI SECRETARIAT: I.P ESTATE NEW DELHI-110002 A complaint from some parents of the Mirambika School was received in the CM Office and my office on January 6, 2017, which was^ handed over to Director (Education) for a detailed reply with the matter. I received the detailed reply provided by the Directorate^ Education My office also received another detailed complaint from parents (dated February 2, 2017). In the meantime, I also personal sought the relevant files from the Directorate, especially those pertaining to the initial recognition of the school in 1988. I found that the affidavit filed by the Directorate of Education in the Handle High Court on June 29. 2015 misrepresented the facts of the case. Therefore, on February 5, 2017, I directed the Director (Education) to do the following:
1. Physical Inspection and Document Inspection of the building and the land where the school is currently running, within two working days by a competent officer and the report to be submitted to my office and thereafter filed in the Hon'ble Court by February 8, 2017.
2. Withdrawing the above mentioned affidavit from the Hon'ble Court and filing a new affidavit with the correct facts, by February 8, 2017, and
3. Immediate suspension of concerned officers who were responsible for filing of above mentioned affidavit and Inspection Report in the Hon'ble Court, and initiation of Vigilance Enquiry against them.' On 13th February, 2017, I received another complaint from parents of the Mirambika School (enclosed), who have flagged multiple additional Page 2 of 7 irregularities by the Directorate of Education in the case of Mirambika School. The following, very serious questions, need to be answered:
1. Why was the information that was sought by the parents regarding the original recognition papers of Mirambika School -
in an RTI application dated October 20, 2016 - not provided by the Directorate of Education? The RTI was filed with the Directorate of Education, who forwarded the application to the office of the DDE (South), who replied that the file is with the Head Quarters (i.e. the Directorate of Education). Despite an appeal, the file with the original recognition papers was not provided in response to the RTI application. The said file was available with the Directorate of Education, and was made available to me, when I wished to peruse it in February 2017. Then why was the information not provided to the RTI applicants?
[Emphasis supplied by us]
2. On May 1 and May 21, 2015, officers of the Directorate of Education, inspected the premises of the Aurobindo Ashram where the school was housed temporarily, in April-May, 2015. If the school was being run in the residential section of Aurobindo Ashram - where many adults were residing (as is stated in the Inspection report of may 21, 2015) - how could the concerned officers carry out such an inspection? Was the presence of unknown male and female adults not a serious threat to the safety and security of the children studying in the school? Why was immediate action not taken against the school.?
3. The Court records (included in the enclosed complaints) show that an Inspection of the school was conducted by the Directorate of Education on May 1, 2015. However, despite repeated requests by my office, no Inspection Report has been made available. My office was informed that no such Inspection Report exists, and that no such Inspection happened. How has an Inspection got recorded in Court documents, yet the officials of Directorate of Education claim that such an Inspection never happened?
4. On May 6, 2015, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Directorate of Education to inspect the premises from which Mirambika School was running at that point of time. However, the Inspection of the premises was done on May 21, after the school was closed for the Summer Vacation. If the order was passed in the presence of the DoE counsel and a copy of the Court order was served to the Directorate of Page 3 of 7 Education on May 7, then why was the Inspection delayed till May 21, when the school was closed for summer vacations?
5. How was a member of the Management Committee of Mirambika school (the Director's nominee) made a member of the Inspection Team who inspected Mirambika School on May 21 and July 6 2015? Who constituted this Inspection Team? How can an Inspection Team be considered independent, when one of its members is a member of the Managing Committee of the school being inspected? Is this not a conflict of interest?
6. In the Inspection, directed by Honb'le Court, of Mirambika School premises of 9th July, 2015 the Inspection Team found various shortcomings, including a full-fledged commercial kitchen, department store, uniform store, stationary store and bank. Did the Directorate of Education conduct any more inspections of the school to check if the shortcomings had-been corrected?
7. What was the action taken by then Director Education, on the multiple petitions made by the parents of the Mirambika School? Is it ture that the children of the then Director were studying in Mother's International School, a school run by the same management, Sri Aurobindo Education Society (SAES)?
8. What role has been played by the nominees of the Directorate of Education and the Advisory Board on the Management Committee of Mirambika School? Have they furnished any reports on the condition of the school since April 2015, when the school has been through two shifts of premises? How many meetings of the Management Committee have they attended in the period 2015 -17? What are the issues they have raised in these meetings?
9. Why did the Directorate of Education give permission to Mother's International School, which is also run by SAES, to admit students mid- session from Mirambika School? Was this not an attempt to bypass Rule 45 and close down some classes, while the school premises were being shifted and many parents were complaining about it?
10. If there were vacancies in the three entry level classes, in comparison to the highest enrolment in the past 3 years, why was no action taken asking Mirambika School to fill these vacancies, despite complaints and representation on this issue?
Page 4 of 7The misrepresentation of facts in an affidavit filed in the Hon'ble High Court, was in itself an extremely serious issue. When it is seen in conjunction with the multiple questions mentioned above and the detailed complaints and representations of the parents, it seems prima facie that there was a collusion between SAES and officials of the Directorate of Education. The Director Education is hereby directed to do the following:
1. Remove the nominees of the Directorate and the Advisory Board on the Management Committee of Mirambika School and replace them with new nominees.
2. Criminal investigation of the entire matter of the shift of premises of Mirambika School and the role played by officials of the Directorate of Education. The investigation should include (but not be limited to) the following acts of omission and commission: inspections of Mirambika School, providing information on Miramblka School in response to the RTI application, filing the affidavits in the Hon'ble High Court, approving the shift of students to Mothers' International school, formation of the Inspection Teams. Case to be referred to the Central Bureau of Inspection Teams. Case to be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for a fair, impartial and thorough investigation.
Sd/-
Manish Sisodia Dy. Chief Minister 15.02.2017 The Appellant states that since the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. (Civil) 4535/2015, the department filed an affidavit containing forged facts which was solely aimed to save the management of Mirambika Free Progress School from wrath of the High Court. He states that after the matter was brought to the notice of Dy. CM, Delhi; the department subsequently withdrew the affidavit so filed before the High Court. All supporting documents are brought on record by the Appellant.
Per contra, the respondent present is unaware of the facts highlighted by the appellant and stresses that the file concerned remained untraceable all this while. When confronted with the note authored by Dy. CM as regards the availability of file concerned in the Directorate of Education, the respondent states that the appellant was called upon to inspect the records in compliance with the FAO.
Page 5 of 7as well the deliberate attempt to withhold amounts to denial where the case of respondent is that the file was missing.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that the act of delay in disclosure of information cannot be seen in isolation but the same appears to be a well conceived strategy to keep the matter under wraps. The file which was reported missing from all sections of the Directorate became available at once on the asking of Dy. Chief Minister. The reason of 'non availability' is thus, not difficult to fathom.
The then PIO, Directorate of Education (Hq) as well as then PIO, DDE (South) are prima facie responsible for furnishing wrong information, knowingly. The registry is directed to issue show cause as to why maximum penalty under the RTI Act may not be imposed besides recommendation of initiation of Disciplinary proceedings against them. Notice shall be served to both noticees through the Directorate of Education as well as the present PIO (Hq). Reply, if any must reach the Commission by 17.11.2017.
The PIO, Dte. Of Education is directed to furnish complete information free of cost on all points afresh, within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. A compliance report of the same shall be addressed to Commission so as to reach by 17.11.2017. The Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.
Notify for penalty proceedings / show cause hearing on 30.11.2017 at 3.00 pm. (Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Page 6 of 7 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
Page 7 of 7