Central Information Commission
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 17 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000058/6876
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000058
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
PGT (Chemistry),
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya
At/P.O Rajgir, Dist - Nalanda,
Bihar - 803116.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Regional Office, Boring Road, Patna - 13, Bihar.
RTI application filed on : 08/10/2009 PIO replied : 19/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 21/11/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 05/01/2010 Hearing Notice sent on : 14/01/2010 Hearing held on : 17/02/2010 Information Sought:
Copy of the enquiry report of the case related to compliance to NVS, regional office, Patna Vide letter no. F.2-2(20)/SA/NVS/Patna/2009/20724 dated 18/08/2009. The inquiry was conducted by Mr. Girish Chandra, AC.
Reply of the PIO:
The inquiry report could not be given since the inquiry is not over. Ground of First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory reply received from the PIO and no action taken by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh;
Respondent : Absent;
The Appellant is seeking a copy of the inquiry report conducted by Mr. Girish Chandra. He has produced before the Commission papers which evidence that an incident has occurred in 2006 for which an inquiry was instituted on 29/11/2006 which was supposed to be conducted by Mr. K. Keshav Rao, Assistant Commissioner(Establishment- NVS Patna). Subsequently there is another order of 18/08/2009 appointing Mr. Girish Chandra, AC(Academic) NVS Patna to conduct the inquiry. The Appellant states that Mr. Girish Chandra took written statements from the Appellant as well as about 20 teaching and non-teaching staff of the school on 29/08/2009. He is seeking inquiry report submitted by Mr. Girish Chandra. The Appellant points out that he has been issued a charge sheet on 23/09/2009 hence he wants a copy of the inquiry report submitted by Mr. Girish Chandra. The PIO Mr. Madan Pal has replied on 19/11/2009 that there is no inquiry report made by Mr. Girish Chandra, hence it cannot be given. The appellant has filed a first appeal on 21/11/2009 but received no order from the First Appellate Authority, this is dereliction of duty by the First Appellate Authority.
The CPIO Mr. Manas Ranjan Chakarborty has written to the Appellant on 16/12/2009 stating that the investigation is not over and hence the inquiry report cannot be given to him. This is a wrong position since the only exemption which might be claimed is Section 8(1)(h) which exempts "information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders". If this exemption have to be claimed it have to be shown that the process of investigation would be impeded and some explanation have to be given for this. The Commission finds it very peculiar that for incidence that took place in 2006 and the inquiry is then constituted and nothing appears to have been done. Subsequently in 2009 another inquiry is constituted and this report is not given to the Appellant. The reason claimed by Mr. Manas Ranjan Chakarborty for denying information do not appear to be justified.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information to the Appellant before 05 March 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 19 March 2010 at 3.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). 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 17 February 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)