Central Information Commission
Mr. Rampal vs Sant Longowal Institute Of Engg. & Tech on 8 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001353/6738
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001353
Complainant : Mr. Rampal,
S/O Mr. Jiyara
Vill.,Post Juan,Distt. Sonepat
Haryana
Respondent : Public Information officer,
Sant Longowal Institute
Of Engg. & Tech, Longowal
Distt. Sangur Punjab-148106
RTI application filed on : 07/08/2009
PIO replied : 05/10/2009 (after Commission's notice)
First Appeal filed on : 18/09/2009
Complaint filed on : 01/10/2009
Notice Issued on : 06/10/2009
Hearing held on : 08/02/2010
Information sought:
1. The name and designations of all the public servants of SLIET, Longowal who prepared file notings for relieving Mr. Harminder Kumar Aggarwal, Assistant workshop Superintendent who had applied for the same post in another institute and suppressed the fact ,hence violating the rules of the institute.
2. The name and designations of all the public servants of SLIET, Longowal who proposed to take action according to the rule while dealing with the notings of the file, above mentioned.
3. The name and designations of all the public servants of SLIET, Longowal who are responsible for granting/allowing lien to Mr. H.K. Aggarwal for six months period against his application for lien of 2 years, against rule and regulations of the institute.
4. The name and designations of all the public servants of SLIET, Longowal who are responsible for not taking appropriate action against Mr H.K.Aggarwal who committed misconduct by sending his fifth application for outside job in calendar year 2008 in violation of rules and regulations of the institute as not receiving any NOC from the institute.
5. Inform whether the institute is calling back Mr. H.K.Aggarwal after expiry of 6 months?
6. If the institute is not calling back Mr. H.K.Aggarwal back,whether the institute is going call to his resignation?
7. Inform whether the institute has issued notice/show cause notice to Mr.H.K.Aggarwal regarding termination of his lien i.e. 17/09/2009 after completing six months. If, so please supply the certified copy of the notice. Also supply the copy of the reply of that notice submitted by Mr.H.K.Aggarwal.Page 1 of 3
8. Inform whether Mr.H.K.Aggarwal tendered his resignation from the post of Assistant Workshop Supdt?
9. Inform whether the concerned the concerned public servants of the institute are conspiring to extend the lien of Mr.H.K.Aggarwal even after filing a writ petition in Punjab & Haryana HC against the illegal selection of this ineligible candidate on the same post in Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Tech. Murthal. If so, provide the copy of rules likely to be used for extending his lien.
10. Supply the certified copies of notings of files prepared by concerned officials in the institute in the matter.
PIO's reply:
1. (Queries no. 1 to 3) The names of the officials, who dealt the matter of Mr. H.K. Aggarwal for granting lien can not be disclosed under the provisions of RTI Act. However the information containing 2 pages is enclosed from which the designations of the officials can be ascertained.
2. (query no.4) Since the institute allowed the lien to Mr. Aggarwal, no official is responsible for not taking action against him.
3. (query no.5 & 6) The case of Mr. Agarwal for extension is under consideration of the competent authority.
4. (query no 7) No such notice has been issued.
5. (query no 8) Mr. Aggarwal has not tendered his resignation from the post of Ass. Workshop Superintendent.
6. (query no. 9) same as queries no. 5 & 6.
7. (query no. 10) For termination of lien, same as at query no.4 above. Regarding extension in lien, the copies can not be supplied as the case is under the consideration of the competent authority.
Grounds for First Appeal:
As the Appellant was sent a letter dated 28/10/2009 for using the alternate remedy of First Appeal available to the Applicant, he filed First Appeal on the ground that complete information was not provided by the PIO.
Grounds for Complaint: No information provided by PIO but after having received the incomplete information from PIO after notice of Commission and also having used the remedy of First Appeal the Appellant has sent a letter dated 26/11/2009 to the Commission as he has received unsatisfactory and incomplete information from the PIO.
Submissions received before the hearing:
Three letters to CIC dated 01/10/2009, 10/11/2009 and 26/11/2009 respectively.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: Mr Ramveer on behalf Mr Ramphal.
Respondent: Dr. HK Sharma, PIO The PIO has provided information fairly late on 04/12/2009. The Appellant states that this has become a routiune with this public authority. The Appellant wants the following additional information. The Appellant wants the names of the HOD ME and HOD WS. The PIO will provide these names to him.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed. The PIO will provide the information as directed above before 20 February 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 28 February, 2010. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 8 February 2010 In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.(VA) Page 3 of 3