Central Information Commission
Smt. Farahat Siddiqui vs Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya on 15 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. . (As Per Annexure)
ADJUNCT DECISION
Farahat Siddiqui ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Dr. Harisingh Gaur
Vishwa Vidyalaya, M.P ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 113777 30.10.2023 16.11.2023 26.12.2023 Not on 25.04.2024
record
2. 113779 31.10.2023 21.11.2023 26.12.2023 Not on 26.04.2024
record
3. 113781 30.10.2023 16.11.2023 26.12.2023 Not on 24.04.2024
record
4. 115268 11.12.2023 01.01.2024 26.02.2024 Not on 09.05.2024
record
5. 115269 11.12.2023 01.01.2024 26.02.2024 Not on 09.05.2024
record
6. 115270 09.12.2023 05.02.2024 26.02.2024 Not on 09.05.2024
record
7. 115719 11.12.2023 05.02.2024 26.02.2024 Not on 10.05.2024
record
Page 1 of 30
8. 117025 17.02.2024 14.03.2024 03.04.2024 Not on 24.05.2024
record
9. 115178 09.12.2023 16.01.2024 12.02.2024 Not on 08.05.2024
record
10. 115776 11.12.2023 05.02.2024 26.02.2024 Not on 10.05.2024
record
11. 113743 30.10.2023 16.11.2023 26.12.2023 Not on 25.04.2024
record
12. 115078 11.12.2023 16.01.2024 12.02.2024 Not on 08.05.2024
record
13. 115415 11.12.2023 01.01.2024 26.02.2024 Not on 09.05.2024
record
14. 115418 11.12.2023 01.01.2024 26.02.2024 Not on 10.05.2024
record
15. 113747 30.10.2023 29.12.2023 26.12.2023 Not on 24.04.2024
record
16. 113746 30.10.2023 21.11.2023 26.12.2023 Not on 24.04.2024
record
17. 113749 30.10.2023 21.11.2023 26.12.2023 Not on 24.04.2024
record
18. 113753 30.10.2023 16.11.2023 26.12.2023 Not on 24.04.2024
record
19. 114112 31.10.2023 16.01.2024 26.12.2023 Not on 26.04.2024
record
Note: The instant set of appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar RTI Application(s) and same subject matter.
Date of Adjunct Hearing: 20.03.2025
Date of Adjunct Decision: 11.04.2025
Page 2 of 30
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113777
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 seeking information as under:
"इं ी ूट ऑफ इं जीिनय रं ग ए टे ॉलॉजी को िदनांक 13/10/2023 को माह िसत र, 2023 के मेरे यं के ( ीमती फरहत िस ीकी) वेतन-प क भेजा गया था. उस पर की गई कायवाही की सम जानकारी। मेरे ारा भेजे गए वेतन प क, की गई कायवाही की सम की स ित। "
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Institute of Engineering and Technology िवभाग से ीमती फरहत िस ीकी का माह िसत र, 2023 का वेतन प क िव.िव. की थापना शाखा म भेजा जाता है। वेतन प क से संबंिधत कायवाही की जानकारी संबंिधत शाखा से ा की जा सकती है ।"
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 1.3. Aggrieved with the Non receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113779
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2023 seeking information as under:
"गौर ारक, शनीचरी, सागर म िदनांक 01/01/2017 से अ ू बर 2023 तक पद थ सम कमचा रयों के मािसक वेतन प क की मािणत ितिलिप ेक माह की पृथक पृथक।"
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 3 of 30"गौर ारक, शनीचरी, सागर म पद थ कमचा रयों के वेतन प क संबंधी जानकारी वेतन शाखा से ा की जा सकती है ।"
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 2.3. Aggrieved with the Non receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113781
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 seeking information as under:
"डॉ. आशीष वमा, भारी िनदे शक, Institute of Engineering & Technology को िव िव ालय म उनकी िनयु िदनां क से आज िदनां क तक समय-समय पर िदये गये , उनके मूल काय के अित र अ भारों के जारी िकये गये आदे शों की मािणत ितिलिप। "
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Institute of Engineering and Technology िवभाग के भारी िनदे शक की िव िव ालय म िनयु से संबंिधत िव.िव. शासन के डोफा कायालय से ा की जा सकती है ।"
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 3.3 Aggrieved with the Non receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115268
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 seeking information as under:
Page 4 of 30"डॉ. हरीिसंह गौर िव िव ालय म वतमान म कायरत िनयिमत, संिवदा, क जे ी, दै िनक वेतनभोगी तथा अ कार के कमचा रयों की सूची -िजनका भुगतान िव िव ालय के ारा िकया जाता हो।"
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"जानकारी थापना कायालय से संबंिधत हो सकती है ।"
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 4.3. Aggrieved with the Non receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115269
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 seeking information as under:
"Institute of Engineering and Technology (IoET) के भारी-िनदे शक ी आशीष वमा को िलखे गए प िदनां क 25/09/2023 जो IoET को िदनार 26/09/2023 को ा आ, उस प पर भारी िनदे शक IoET कायवाही करने के िलए अिधकृत नहीं है (RTI No. 32-7675) तो उस प पर कायवाही करने हेतु अिधकृत , पदािधकारी का नाम तथा पता दे व, सम उपल जानकारी। "
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"उपरो जानकारी िव.िव. की के ीय कायालय से ा की जा सकती है।"
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Page 5 of 305.3. Aggrieved with the Non receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115270
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.12.2023 seeking information as under:
"इं ी ूट ऑफ इं जीिनय रं ग ए टे ॉलॉजी म पद थ शै िणक गैर शै िणक कमचा रयों ारा ी आशीष वमा के िव की गई िशकायत की मािणत ितिलिप "
6.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"उपरो िवषयां तगत लेख है लोक सूचना अिधकारी ारा सम लोक सूचना अिधकारी िनदे शक/उपकुलसिचव फेक ी अफेयस (डोफा) को प अंत रत िकया गया था। लेिकन आज िदनां क तक संबंिधत शाखा से लोक सूचना कायालय म कोई भी जानकारी ा नहीं ई है । उपरो ानुसार करण का िनराकरण िकया जाता है , सूचनाथ ेिषत।"
6.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 6.3. Aggrieved with the Non receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115719
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 seeking information as under:
"रिज ार महोदय को मेरे ारा ी संतोष, कुमार धानक एम.टी.एस. आउटसोस के िव िदनाँ क 30/06/23 को की गई िशकायत पर की गई कायवाही की सम उपल जानकारी। "
7.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under
:-Page 6 of 30
"उपरो िवषयां तगत लेख है लोक सूचना अिधकारी ारा सम लोक सूचना अिधकारी कुलसिचव के िनज सहायक कुलसिचव कायालय को प अंत रत िकया गया था। लेिकन आज िदनां क तक संबंिधत शाखा से लोक सूचना कायालय म कोई भी जानकारी ा नहीं ई है । उपरो ानुसार करण का िनराकरण िकया जाता है . सूचनाथ ेिषत।"
7.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 7.3. Aggrieved with the Non receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/117025
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.02.2024 seeking information as under:
"कुलसिचव कायालय म संधा रत की जाने वाली आवक-जावक पंजी की िदनाँक 01/06/2023 से िदनाँक 15/02/2024 तक की मािणत ितिलिप । "
8.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"उपरो िवषयां तगत, संदिभत प ानुसार िब दु मांक 06 के संबंध म अवगत कराना है िक धारा 11 के तहत् उ जानकारी दे ना संभव नहीं है।"
8.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 8.3. Aggrieved with the Non receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115178
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.12.2023 seeking information as under:
Page 7 of 30"Institute of Engineering & Technology म पद थ शै िणक, गैर शै िणक कमचा रयों ारा ी आशीष वमा के िव की गई िशकायत की मािणत ितिलिप ।"
9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"उपरो िवषयांतगत, संदिभत प ानुसार के संबंध म अवगत कराना है िक कुलसिचव कायालय म उपल अिभलेखानुसार जानकारी उपल नहीं है। अतः उ जानकारी स ंिधत िवभाग/शाखा/ को से ा की जा सकती है ।"
9.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
9.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115776
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 seeking information as under:
"Institute of Engineering and Technology (IoET) के भारी-िनदे शक ी आशीष वमा को िलखे गए प िदनां क 25/09/2023 जो IOET को िदनां क 26/09/2023 को ा आ, उस प पर भारी िनदे शक कायवाही करने के िलए अिधकृत नहीं है (RTI No. 32-7675) तो कृपया उस प पर -कायवाही करने हेतु अिधकृत , पदािधकारी का नाम तथा पता दे व सम उपल जानकारी ।"
10.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"उपरो िवषया गत लेख है लोक सूचना अिधकारी ारा सम लोक सूचना अिधकारी अनुभाग अिधकारी थापना को प अंत रत िकया गया था। लेिकन आज िदनांक तक संबंिधत शाखा से लोक सूचना कायालय म कोई भी जानकारी ा नहीं ई है । उपरो ानुसार करण का िनराकरण िकया जाता है , सूचनाथ ेिषत।"Page 8 of 30
10.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
10.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113743
11. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 seeking information as under:
"Institute of Engineering & Technology (IoET) म पद थ रहीं क ूटर-ऑपरे टर आउटसोस, ीमती फरहत िस ीकी की माह जुलाई, अग , िसत र, 2023 की उप थित पंजी की मािणत ितिलिप ।"
11.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
" Institute of Engineering and Technology िवभाग म ीमित फरहत िस ीकी, आऊट सोस कम की माह जुलाई 2023, अग , 2023 एवं िसत र, 2023 उप थित प क की जानकारी िव.िव. की थापना शाखा से ा की जा सकती है ।"
11.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
11.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115078
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 seeking information as under:
"Institute of Engineering and Technology (IoET) के भारी-िनदे शक ी आशीष वमा को िलखे गए प िदनां क 25/09/2023 जो IOET को िदनां क 26/09/2023 को ा आ, उस प पर भारी िनदे शक कायवाही करने के िलए अिधकृत नहीं है (RTI No. 32-7675) तो कृपया उस Page 9 of 30 प पर -कायवाही करने हेतु अिधकृत , पदािधकारी का नाम तथा पता दे व सम उपल जानकारी ।"
12.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"उपरो िवषयां तगत, संदिभत प ानुसार के संबंध म अवगत कराना है िक कुलसिचव कायालय म उपल अिभलेखानुसार जानकारी उपल नहीं है। अतः उ जानकारी स ंिधत िवभाग/शाखा/ को से ा की जा सकती है ।"
12.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
12.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115415
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
" ो. चंदा बैन, अ , आवास आवंटन सिमित, डॉ. हरीिसंह गौर िव िव ालय सागर (म. .) को िदनाँ क 25/10/2023 को ी संतोष कुमार धानक. एम.टी.एस., आउटसोस के िव की गई िशकायत पर की गई कायवाही की मािणत ितिलिप, उपल सम जानकारी, िशकायती आवेदन सिहत I"
13.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"उपरो िवषय एवं संदभ म लेख है , िक सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 के अंतगत चाही गई जानकारी ी संतोष कुमार धानक आऊटसोस एम.टी.एस. कमचारी गौर ारक शनीचरी वाड की िशकायत का कोई करण सं ान म नहीं है ।"
13.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Page 10 of 3013.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115418
14. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 seeking information as under:
"Institute of Engineering & Technology (IoET) म पद थ रहीं क ूटर-ऑपरे टर आउटसोस, ीमती फरहत िस ीकी की माह जुलाई, अग , िसत र, 2023 की उप थित पंजी की मािणत ितिलिप ।"
14.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Institute of Engineering and Technology िवभाग म ीमित फरहत िस ीकी, आऊट सोस कम की माह जुलाई 2023, अग , 2023 एवं िसत र, 2023 उप थित प क की जानकारी िव.िव. की थापना शाखा से ा की जा सकती है ।"
14.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
14.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.05.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113747
15. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 seeking information as under:
"Institute of Engineering & Technology (IoET) म पद थ रहीं ीमती फरहत िस ीकी (म यं) की माह जुलाई, अग , िसत र, 2023 के वेतन प क की मािणत ितिलिप।"
15.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 11 of 30"Institute of Engineering and Technology िवभाग म ीमित फरहत िस ीकी, आऊट सोस कम की माह जुलाई 2023, अग , 2023 एवं िसत र, 2023 उप थित प क की जानकारी िव.िव. की थापना शाखा से ा की जा सकती है ।"
15.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
15.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113746
16. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 seeking information as under:
"गौर ारक, शिनचरी, म पद थ ी संतोष कुमार धानक, MTS Outsource के िव मेरे ारा की गई िशकायत िदनाँ क 30/06/2023 पर की गई कायवाही की सम जानकारी, िशकायती आवेदन प , की गई कायवाही से संबंिधत सम प ों की ितिलिप, पेन डाइव की ितिलिप सिहत ।"
16.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"गौर ारक, शिनचरी सागर म पद थ ी संतोष कुमार धानक MTS Outsource के िव िशकायत से संबंिधत कोई रकॉड उपल नहीं आ है ।"
16.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
16.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113749
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 seeking information as under:
Page 12 of 30"गौर ारक, शिनचरी, म पद थ ी संतोष कुमार धानक, MTS Outsource के िव मेरे ारा की गई िशकायत िदनाँक 04/08/2023 पर की गई कायवाही की सम जानकारी की स ित I"
17.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"गौर ारक, शिनचरी सागर म पद थ ी संतोष कुमार धानक MTS Outsource के िव िशकायत से संबंिधत कोई रकॉड उपल नहीं आ है ।"
17.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
17.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113753
18. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 seeking information as under:
" भारी िनदे शक, Institute of Engineering & Technology (IoET) को ेिषत (मेरे ारा) प िदनांक 25/09/2023 जो िदनांक 26/09/2023 (IOET को ा , पर की गई कायवाही की सम जानकारी, िदनां क 25/09/2023 को िदये गये आवेदन, की गई कायवाही की स ित I"
18.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Institute of Engineering and Technology िवभाग म िदनां क 26.09.2023 को ा प की कायवाही की जानकारी के िलए भारी िनदे शक अिधकृत नहीं है ।"
18.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
18.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.04.2024.
Page 13 of 30Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/114112
19. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2023 seeking information as under:
"गौर अ यन के , कटरा, सागर म िदनाँ क 01/01/2017 से अ ू बर 2023 तक पद थ सम कमचा रयों के मािसक वेतन प क की मािणत ितिलिप ेक माह की पृथक-पृथक ।"
19.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023.
19.2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
िव एवं लेखा कायालय से संबंिधत नहीं है ।
The FAA's order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
19.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.04.2024.
Hearing Proceedings of 20.02.2025 & Decision of 27.02.2025 "20. The Appellant was represented by Atul Nijhawan through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Brij Bhushan Singh, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
21. At the outset, the Commission apprised the Rep. of the Appellant that a preliminary perusal of the instant set of cases suggests that these are identical to a fleet of cases that were previously filed by his own self and were dismissed by the bench vide order(s) dated 28.06.2024 (52 Appeals) and 12.02.2025 (29 Appeals) with the following common observations:
" The Commission, in furtherance of the hearing proceedings and perusal of the facts on record (which includes the copy of replies sent to all of the RTI Applications under Page 14 of 30 reference as gathered from the written submissions of the CPIO) reiterates that the instant matter(s) do not warrant any relief to be ordered to the Appellant. It is emphasized that these cases either seek personal information of third parties that stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and no larger public interest has been argued or appears pertinent from such disclosure or these are cases wherein the queries cannot be construed as "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act or are such cases, where the CPIOs have already parted with the personal information of third parties or the available information or factual replies.
Now, as far as the absence of any scope of relief to be ordered in the matters with respect to RTI Application(s) seeking for information related to other employees is concerned, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.....
xxx Similarly, for better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.....Page 15 of 30
xxx The Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that even as the Appellant while filing these RTI Application(s) has raised brief queries but in effect, he has been asking for mostly scattered and voluminous data, which is another factor that works to his disadvantage in the instant matters under reference. Here, the Appellant is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra) matter....
xxx The findings of the Commission in the instant set of matter largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the Appellant. Here, the Appellant's attention is again invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act:
xxx Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Commission dismisses the appeal(s) as bereft of merit.
In the above backdrop, the Appellant is strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications and to make judicious use of his right to information in the future as Appeal(s) emanating from the same or similar nature of RTI Applications are liable to be summarily dismissed henceforth. The Respondent CPIO & FAA are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications or First Appeal(s) of the Appellant on the same subject matter."Page 16 of 30
While the Appellant did not contest the observation of these cases being identical to his own cases; he sought to urge that through these cases the Appellant would like to rely on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P No. 6038 of 2021 wherein information related to third party(s) has been allowed to be disclosed. He further urged to point out that even in these cases there are no conclusive replies except stating that the deemed PIOs have not responded to the CPIO etc.
22. Brij Bhushan Singh, CPIO at the outset listed out the cases that bore identical RTI Application(s) and those asking for the same kind of information to compress the number of instant appeal(s) being heard. He submitted that in furtherance of what has been already brought on record by him in the previous decided cases pertaining to Atul Nijhawan, in the instant cases also, his hands were tied as the concerned deemed PIOs were not providing him the information and even prior to the hearing when he has asked for these deemed PIOs to take notice and respond, no action is forthcoming except for some of them accompanying him at the NIC studio.
At this point, the Commission enquired if any action was taken on the Caution Note issued to their office and the FAA vide the decision issued on 28.06.2024, and which was later reiterated vide the decision issued on 12.02.2025, Brij Bhushan Singh, CPIO feebly submitted that only strictures have been issued to the deemed PIOs by the FAA, but to no avail except for a few of them having acted upon the strictures. Yet, it was urged that the Commission may take a lenient view as one last case of omission on the part of these deemed PIOs and requested that adverse action may not be initiated.
For recollection & emphasis, the averred Caution Note is reproduced hereunder:
"Caution Note for the Respondent Page 17 of 30 Notwithstanding the above decision, having considered the replies of the CPIOs available on record mostly dated 25.01.2024, wherein it has been informed to the Appellant that the concerned Section/deemed PIO have not provided the information to the CPIO in response to the assistance sought for under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, the Commission takes grave exception and strongly rebukes providing such response to the RTI Applicants in the future. The RTI Applicants cannot be expected to make peace with the fact that their right to information stand curtailed in a scenario where, the CPIO decides to inform the applicant that non- receipt of information from the deemed PIO be accepted as the reply to their RTI Application. There ought to be a system of checks and balances instituted in the Respondent University, whereby, the CPIO invests reasonable efforts to ensure that the deemed PIOs work in tandem with the CPIO to enable proper disposal of RTI Applications in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Similarly, the deemed PIOs are also cautioned against their inaction or mindless disposal of RTI Applications by asking the RTI applicant to approach another Section. The deemed PIOs ought to restrict their replies to the provision of the available information or categorically stating unavailability of information. Similarly, in cases where the RTI Application does not even conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the CPIO should exercise their wisdom and apply their mind before forwarding the RTI Application mechanically to all deemed PIOs. It is also pointed out that in cases where the CPIO or the deemed PIO have parted with the personal information of the third parties, it ought to be ensured in future that such disclosures are made only after following the due process of law laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act. As it follows, the FAA is also expected to adopt a proactive approach in such cases where the CPIOs claims that the deemed PIOs are not tending to their request seeking assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to ensure that the public authority is not portrayed in a questionable scenario Page 18 of 30 leading to aspersions being cast upon its administrative functioning and tenets of transparency & probity. Here, the FAA is also strictly advised to ensure disposal of all the First Appeal(s) received by them as it is the statutory duty cast upon the FAA to decide First Appeal(s) and the same cannot be evaded under any circumstance.
The CPIO shall ensure service of this order to each of the designated deemed PIOs in the University to take note of the caution note stated above and to ensure timely and proper disposal of RTI Applications in the future.
A copy of this order is also marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse observations of the Commission and to ensure proper sensitization of the CPIO & the deemed PIOs regarding the mandate of the RTI Act."
The Commission being flabbergasted by the repeated defiance of the RTI Act provisions noted on the part of the Respondent & the deemed CPIOs directed Brij Bhushan Singh to submit a composite report stating the specific names of the deemed PIOs who have failed to render assistance in these cases and the same was directed to be placed on record by end of the day.
23. The Commission in furtherance of the hearing proceedings observes that the reliance placed by the Appellant on the MP High Court judgment is not applicable to the facts of the instant set of cases as the averred judgment circles around the view that wages paid to an employee are a matter of suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act. In the instant set of cases, the information sought ranges from copy of monthly pay slips of third parties to details of action taken against third party employees; duties entrusted to third parties amongst other such service matters. Now, since the issues relating to disclosure of personal information of third parties or the non-conformity of some of these Page 19 of 30 queries to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been earlier discussed in the orders of 28.06.2024 and 12.02.2025 as mentioned above, the Commission is not inclined to record any further remarks or observations.
24. However, as a separate cause of action, Farhat Siddiqui's cases are being heard by the bench for the first time, therefore irrespective of the similarity to Atul Nijhawan's cases filed against the Respondent which have been dismissed, the Commission finds a limited scope of relief to be ordered in this particular instance.
In doing so, the Commission directs Brij Bhushan, CPIO to identify the RTI Application(s) under reference wherein the Appellant has sought for information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act related to her own self, i.e. her own pay/wages; action taken on her complaint/letter(s) and such likes and procure the available information from the concerned record holders with respect to these identified RTI Applications and provide a composite reply mentioning the RTI Application reference number along with the corresponding Second Appeal nos. The said composite reply of Brij Bhushan incorporating the specific available information restricted to the Appellant shall be provided free of cost to her within 15 days of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
25. Furthermore, the Commission finds that there is an institutional failure evinced from the repeated adverse observations recorded against the deemed CPIOs & FAA of the Respondent office. It is pertinent to note that in the instant set of cases, more than half of the cases bear inconclusive replies indicating that the Nodal CPIO was unable to procure the information from the deemed CPIOs or the deemed CPIOs putting on record that the Appellant can find the information with some other record holder.
The relentless and atrocious mockery of the RTI Act being caused by the office bearers of Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya is insurmountable and is bringing Page 20 of 30 absolute shame to the existence of this very public authority, which is also incidentally a central educational institution of repute. The series of cases thus far decided against this public authority has afforded ample reasons to cast aspersions on the working ethos of the Central University and the quality of education being imparted to the students at the hands of such seemingly callous employees identifying themselves as deemed PIOs, some of whom shockingly are Professors and Assistant Professors.
26. Now, therefore, the Commission having observed that there has been a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act by the concerned deemed CPIOs in the instant matter directs the deemed PIOs named in the letter of 20.02.2025 (filed by Brij Bhushan, CPIO upon the directions issued to him during the hearing) to appear before the bench on 20.03.2025 through video conference (time & venue of the hearing will be intimated separately by the registry attached with the bench) to show-cause as to why maximum penalty shall not be imposed on them, respectively, under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failing to discharge the statutory duty cast upon them by virtue of the RTI Act in the capacity of being the deemed PIO(s) as per Section 5(5) of the RTI Act.
The named (deemed) PIOs shall strictly ensure their presence before the bench with proper explanation(s) filed in writing in advance atleast 48 hours prior to the hearing. Any failure to appear before the bench or any attempt at vitiating the directions contained hereunder will attract ex-parte action against the erring deemed PIOs.
Brij Bhushan, CPIO shall ensure service of this order to each of the named deemed PIO as per his letter of 20.02.2025 and along with that, the CPIO will also present himself before the bench on the above said date of hearing.
The names submitted by the CPIO vide his letter of 20.02.2025 are listed under for reference and clarity:
Page 21 of 30S.No. CIC No. RTI Concerned Comments Deemed Case Section PIO No. Name 1 32- थापना शाखा जानकार त काल न अ ा त अनुभाग 7672 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113777 अ धकार - ी उदय ीवा तव 2 32- गौर मारक जानकार CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113779 के दान क गयी 7683 3 32- फेक ट जानकार दान क गयी CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113781 7676 अफेयस (डोफा) 4 33- थापना शाखा जानकार त काल न दान क गयी अनुभाग 7822 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115268 अ धकार - ी उदय ीवा तव Page 22 of 30 32-33- पोक ट जानकार त काल न 6 अफेयस अ ा त नदे शक, ो० 7807 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115270 (डोफा) पी के कटहल (सेवा नवृ ) 7 33- कुलस चव जानकार त काल न कायालय अ ा त नज सहायक 7824 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115719 ी ेग सागर गुजरे 8 34- कुलस चव जानकार CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/117025 कायालय दान क गयी 7964 9 33- कुलस चव जानकार CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115178 कायालय दान क गयी 7806 10 33- थापना शाखा जानकार त काल न अ ा त अनुभाग 7821 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115776 अ धकार - ी उदय ीवा तव Page 23 of 30 11 32- थापना शाखा जानकार त काल न अ ा त अनुभाग 7677 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113743 अ धकार - ी उदय ीवा तव 12 33- कुलस चव जानकार CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115078 कायालय दान क गयी 7828 13 33- संपदा जानकार कायालय दान क गयी CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115415 7819 14 33- थापना शाखा जानकार त काल न अ ा त अनुभाग 7825 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115418 अ धकार - ी उदय ीवा तव 15 32- थापना शाखा जानकार त काल न CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113747 अ ा त अनुभाग 7678 अ धकार - Page 24 of 30 ी उदय ीवा तव 16 32- गौर मारक जानकार CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113746 के दान क गयी 7673 17 32- कुलप त जानकार त काल न स चवालय अ ा त सम लोक 7674 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113749 सूचना अ धकार ी वीण राठौर। 18 32- इंि ट यूट जानकार ऑफ़ दान क गयी 7675 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113753 इंजी नय रंग एंड टे नोलॉजी। 19 32- गौर अ ययन जानकार CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/114112 क । दान क गयी 7680
27. The Commission further directs the FAA to also appear before the bench as per the above scheduled schedule of hearing to explain the omissions on their part in not having decided on a single First Appeal. For the purpose of ensuring compliance to the Page 25 of 30 provisions of the RTI Act, the FAA is also being deemed as the PIO in the instant matter and will be suitably proceeded against under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The FAA is therefore expected to display a sense of responsibility and present themselves invariably before the bench and ensure filing a detailed advance written submission defending their stand especially in the backdrop of the Caution Note issued to the University vide previous orders as discussed above.
28. A copy of this order is also marked to the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya for due information and suitable action to ensure compliance with the directions contained above by the CPIO, deemed PIOs & the FAA.
29. The Appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly."
ADJUNCT DECISION PROCEEDINGS
1. Brij Bhushan, CPIO along with Uday Shrivastav, Deemed CPIO; Prem Sagar Gujre, Deemed CPIO; Praveen Rathore, Deemed CPIO; Dr. Satya Prakash Upadhyay, FAA & Deemed CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
2. The deemed CPIOs' i.e. Uday Shrivastav, Prem Sagar Gujre, Praveen Rathore were afforded individual opportunity to defend their stance and the common submission was that while they had perused the RTI Application(s) marked to them but missed out on informing the Nodal CPIO or the Appellant that the information sought for did not pertain to their respective Sections or it was not available with the respective sections.
Further, when the FAA & the deemed CPIO was asked to explain, it was casually remarked that the earlier caution note issued to their office by CIC was marked by the FAA to all the deemed CPIOs to take note and as for the instant set of cases, the FAA has written Page 26 of 30 to the Appellant on 18.03.2025 to specify the First Appeal & RTI reference numbers to enable him to decide the First Appeal(s) filed till date.
Upon being rebuked by the bench for the casual approach of the FAA and for submitting absolutely preposterous justification, the FAA argued that he took over the charge of FAA only in Dec 2023 and on 04.12.2023 he had written to CIC for guidance/advice with respect to the repeated filing of RTI matters by the Appellant's husband, Atul Nijhawan.
3. Having observed and considered the statements of the deemed CPIOs & the FAA, the Commission is at a loss to comprehend the absolute lack of accountability and sordid approach of these officials who are unfortunately ordained with the task of dealing with matters under the RTI Act. The named officials clearly remain unyielded to the repeated admonitions and adverse remarks of the Commission till date and continue to act ignorant with no definite answers to justify the omissions noted in the order of 27.02.2025. The Commission is also amused to note the submissions of the FAA, wherein having admittedly joined only in Dec, 2023, he claims to have sought for advice from CIC on 04.12.2023 itself regarding the matters of Atul Nijhawan, while the matter under reference is that of Farhat Siddiqui. The First Appeal(s) under reference are all of the time period beginning Dec 2023, and therefore it is not even the case that the FAA was tired of having decided any First Appeal(s) of the Appellant earlier to have sought for advice from CIC. It is also not clear as to what provision of the RTI Act allows the FAA to abandon his statutory duties cast under the RTI Act by merely writing a letter to CIC asking for guidance and despite not having received any guidance, the FAA appears to have suo motu taken the decision of leaving the First Appeal(s) of the past and future unattended. Further, it is audacious of the FAA to have asked the husband of the Appellant to state the First Appeal & RTI references at this stage that too in respect of the proceedings Page 27 of 30 under the instant cases filed by Farhat Siddiqui, irrespective of her being the wife of Atul Nijhawan and being unapologetic about the same.
The FAA & the deemed CPIOs are reminded that unless they are able to execute their statutory duties under the RTI Act diligently or are able to prove that at some point in time they had been properly attending to the RTI Application(s) and First Appeal(s) of the Appellant, their allegations against the Appellant and treating her and her husband Atul Nijhawan as family unit RTI Applicants to pray for dismissal of their cases is an unacceptable and unappreciated plea.
4. The intent of the deemed CPIOs and the FAA in the instant matter shout loud and clear of malafides and deliberate violation of the RTI Act provisions and therefore warrant strict action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
5. Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Commission hereby imposes a penalty each, of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on 1. Uday Shrivastav, Deemed CPIO; 2. Prem Sagar Gujre, Deemed CPIO;
3. Praveen Rathore, Deemed CPIO for the gross violation and mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 caused in the instant set of matters.
This amount will be deducted from their respective salaries, which will be remitted by July, 2024. The FAA is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the respective salaries of Uday Shrivastav, Deemed CPIO; Prem Sagar Gujre, Deemed CPIO; Praveen Rathore, Deemed CPIO and remit the same through a Demand Draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT payable at New Delhi and send the same to Registrar, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067.
Further, deeming the FAA as an erring CPIO in the instant set of matters for reasons explained at length in the preceding parts of this order, the Commission deems it Page 28 of 30 unavoidable and necessary to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000 /- on Dr. Satya Prakash Upadhyay, FAA & Deemed CPIO.
This amount will be deducted from his salary, which will be remitted by July, 2024. The Vice-Chancellor of the University is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the salary of Dr. Satya Prakash Upadhyay, FAA & Deemed CPIO and remit the same through a Demand Draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT payable at New Delhi and send the same to Registrar, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067.
6. The show-cause proceedings are hereby concluded.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 11.04.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कु मार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya, CPIO, RTI, Cell, Distt- Sagar, M.P-470003 Page 29 of 30
2. To all concerned deemed PIOs as mentioned above.
-(Through the CPIO)
3. The FAA Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya, Distt- Sagar, M.P-470003
--(For strict compliance)
4. Vice-Chancellor Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya, University Road, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh 470003
--( For strict compliance)
5. Farahat Siddiqui Annexure of Second Appeal(s) Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113777 2 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113779 3 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113781 4 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115268 5 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115269 6 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115270 7 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115719 8 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/117025 9 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115178 10 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115776 11 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113743 12 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115078 13 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115415 14 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/115418 15 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113747 16 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113746 17 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113749 18 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/113753 19 CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/114112 Page 30 of 30 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)