Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vijender Kumar vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 15 May, 2019

                                   के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                                बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/156176

Shri Vijender Kumar                                               ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                       VERSUS
                                         बनाम

1. PIO, Joint Director(Health), NDMC,                        ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Parliament Street, New Delhi
Through: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Bhatia

2. PIO, EE (Elect. Est), NDMC, Parliament Street,
New Delhi
Through: Sh. Kamal Rai - Dy. Director (E)

3. PIO, (Auto), NDMC, Auto Workshop, New Delhi

Date of Hearing                           :   03.05.2019
Date of Decision                          :   15.05.2019
Information Commissioner          :           Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                  :    20.02.2017
PIO replied on                            :    07.04.2017
First Appeal filed on                     :    06.04.2017
First Appellate Order on                  :    25.05.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on           :    14.08.2017

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2017, seeking information on five points:-

1. (a) Photocopy of advertisement in "Rashtriya Sahara" dated 12.04.1994 in hindi title "Antim Soochna" at page no. 11 about one Shri Sunil Verma S/o Shri Sulekh Chandra Verma absenting w.e.f. 20.01.1993 requiring him to be present at his work within then 7 days issued by Shri K K Jindal, Director (Personnel), NDMC.

(b) Photocopies of the details of the notings of further follow up process of above referenced notice over the years indicating present position of Shri Sunil Verma with designation, pay scale and department.

2. (a) (i) The date on which office order no. 1992/Auto dated 21.10.1994 signed by Shri A S Awasthi, Secretary, NDMC was delivered to the individual concerned and copy of acknowledgement receipt thereof, if any at all.

(ii) Photocopy of file process notings bases on which above reference office order no. 1992/auto dated 21.10.1994 was signed/issued.

(b) (i) Photocopy of file process notings based on which above referenced "Show Cause Notice" dated 11.11.1994 was issued.

(ii) Under Section 4(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005 the reasons of the administration decision of issuing "Show Cause Notice" dated 11.11.1994 after purported office order No. 1992/Auto dated 21.10.1994 and photocopy of file process notings concerning both, and other related information.

PIO/Joint Director (H), vide letter dated 07.04.2017 informed the appellant that the information which he sought did not pertain to Health Estt-II.

Dissatisfied with the information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 06.04.2017. FAA by order dated 25.05.2017 directed the PIO to furnish the proper reply to Shri Vijender Kumar within 15 days of receipt of this order.

In compliance of FAO, PIO, Joint Director (H), vide letter dated 12.06.2017 informed the appellant that none of the points of the said RTI pertains to Health Estt-II and also stated that a reply has already been sent to appellant vide letter no. D-383/HE-II/SA-II dated 07.04.2017.

A reply dated 14.06.2017 from the PIO/EE(Auto) is found on record whereby information has been denied to the appellant on the ground that information sought relates to third party.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Both parties are present for hearing. Appellant states that the he sought the information under RTI Act, trying to highlight that the respondent did not adhere to proper service conditions and the irregularities led to loss of employment for the appellant. On being asked by the Commission to elaborate and explain the case, the appellant was unable to substantiate his claim. Respondent states that name of Sunil Verma, about whom information was sought by the appellant, was referred through the Employment Exchange in 1995 and thereafter his service was regularised.

Decision In view of the facts of the case, it is noted that appellant has put forth queries on the basis of conjectures and surmises without adequate supporting facts. The Commission cannot entertain such roving and fishing queries to disrupt the functioning of the respondent. No case of public interest could be substantiated by the appellant, in disclosure of the information. However, in the interest of justice, the respondent may provide inspection of records, if the appellant is able to provide the necessary particulars for the same.

Appeal is disposed off accordingly.

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 3 of 3