Central Information Commission
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs Mcd on 19 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MCDND/A/2023/121497
Dinesh Kumar Sharma .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Executive Engg.(Auto) Municipal Corp.
Of Delhi, Auto Workshop, Jhilmil Colony,
Shahadara, Delhi - 110095 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024
Date of Decision : 18.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.11.2022
CPIO replied on : 17.01.2023
First appeal filed on : 16.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"Following information are sought in connection with your office employee named as KAPIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI SURENDER KUMAR RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 305, VILLAGE BURARI, DELHI who was posted at the office of EE (E&M), EDMC Auto Workshop, Jhilmil Colony, New Delhi in the year 2000 and 2001: Q1: Whether employee Kapil Kumar s/o Shri Surender Kumar (now late) had ever applied for advance for major treatment of his father Late Shri Surender Kumar in the year 2000-2001 or earlier as per CS (MA) rules?Page 1 of 7
(a) If yes then what is/ are the dates, months and years when MCD employee Kapil Kumar s/o Shri Surender Kumar applied for advance for major treatment of his father (late since 2001, March)?
(b) What was the major illness Shri Surender Kumar, father of MCD employee Kapil Kumar suffering from as per the application submitted for advance for major treatment of his father?
(c) Whether above said application filed for advance was supported with necessary medical authentication? If so, what were/ are the details of medical authentication in this regard i.e. Name, designation and place of working of the medical officer?
(d) Whether application as above submitted for advance as per CS (MA) rules was allowed and advance was disbursed to the applicant Kapil Kumar?
Q2: Whether Shri Surender Kumar (now late), father of MCD employee Kapil Kumar had ever hospitalized and got treatment in the MCD empanelled private hospital in the year 2000-2001 or earlier either in emergency without referral slip. of AMA or with referral slip of AMA as the case may be?
(a) If above is affirmative in case of emergency hospitalization, applicant may kindly be apprise-d with the name and addition of the MCD empanelled private hospital where Shri Surender Kumar (now late), father of MCD employee Kapil Kumar was hospitalized in emergency complete with date and time of hospitalization. Whether patient as above was hospitalized directly in ICCU for necessary treatment?
(b) If Shri Surender Kumar (now late), father of MCD employee Kapil Kumar was hospitalized with referral slip of AMA then applicant may kindly be apprise-d with the name and addition of the MCD empanelled private hospital where Shri Surender Kumar (now late), father of MCD employee Kapil Kumar was hospitalized and also applicant may kindly be apprise-d with the name and addition of the AMA referred the patient along with purpose of referral complete with date and time of hospitalization. Whether patient as above was hospitalized directly in ICCU for necessary treatment in accordance with referral slip of AMA?
Q3: Whether MCD employee Kapil Kumar s/o Shri Surender Kumar (now late) had ever applied for Medical Re-imbursement Claim with concerned health department enclosed relevant and necessary documents as prescribed under rules for reimbursement of medical expenditures incurred due to indoor treatment of his father Shri Surender Kumar (now late since year 2001, March) in a MCD empanelled private hospital?
Page 2 of 7(a) If yes, applicant may kindly be apprise-d with the following contents of Annexure 'A' (i.e. NOTING SHEET) annexed with the Employee's Application for Medical Re- imbursement Claim which are as under:
(i) Name of the Patient
(ii) Relation with the Employee
(iii) Treating Hospital's Name and Addition
(iv) Period of Treatment Whether Advance incurred on treatment (v)
(b) If yes, applicant may also kindly be apprise-d with the following contents of Annexure 'B' (i.e. CHECK LIST FOR MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM) annexed with the above said application:
(i) Whether name of Shri Surender Kumar as father in relation is included in the 'Form '3'(i.e. Family Details)
(ii) Whether 'Dependency Declaration' in favor of Surender Kumar, endorsed by a authoritative officer was submitted as part of Annexure 'B', if so, applicant may kindly be apprise-d with the name and designation of the officer who had endorsed the 'Dependency Declaration'
(iii) Whether 'Referral Slip' or 'Emergency Certificate' was submitted as part of Annexure 'B', details complete in all respect of the medical competitive authority who had issued either 'Referral Slip' or 'Emergency Certificate' may kindly be furnished on life support system or else, what was the date and time when patient was discharged Q4: Whether MCD employee Kapil Kumar s/o Shri Surender Kumar r/o House No. 305, Village Burari, Delhi, who was in the year 2000-2001 posted at the office of EE (E&M), now EDMC Auto Workshop, Jhilmil colony, Delhi, had in the year 2000-2001 claimed Medical Re-imbursement in connection with Indoor Hospital Treatment of his father Shri Surender Kumar and filed Form- II and Form- III in this regard? If so then kindly furnish the details as mentioned in the aforesaid Form- II and Form- III.
It may kindly be noted that the above said information are sought for court purpose in a Complaint Case No. 8747/2016 (New No. 09/2018 after charges as framed by the Court u/s 419/420/468/471 read with 120-B IPC) which is pending adjudication in the court of Ld. M.M. Ms. Isra Zaidi, KKD Courts, Delhi at the stage of prosecution evidences under section 246(5) Cr.P.C. titled as 'Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs. Sudhir Kumar & Kapil Kumar'."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.01.2023 stating as under:
"In reference with the application received from Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma dated 04- 01-2023, through PIO (DDO) / HA, MCD - the point-wise information sought as per above said RTI application is as under: -Page 3 of 7
1. No medical reimbursement / advance claim applied by Sh. Kapil Kumar (Electrician) for treatment of his father late Sh. Surender Kumar.
2. As per above 1.
3. As per above 1
4. As per above 1."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 23.03.2023, held as under:-
"On going through RTI, it is revealed that reply of all questions have been given by the PIO/EE(E)-II/SSZ to the applicant but applicant was not satisfied with the replies given to him.
Further, the matter was discussed in First appeal and PIO/EE(E)-II/SSZ was directed to give reply to the applicant as per the record available with the department within 07 days with intimation to the undersigned."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, PIO-cum-Executive Engineer and Shri Rizwan Ahmad Ansari, Assistant Engineer, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
The Respondent submitted that the then PIO vide letter dated 17.01.2023, has adequately informed the Appellant that no medical reimbursement / advance claim applied by Sh. Kapil Kumar, (Electrician) for treatment of his father late Sh. Surender Kumar, is available in their records and the same thing has been informed to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.04.2023 in compliance with direction passed by the FAA. He added that the information sought by the Appellant is also exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that an adequate Page 4 of 7 reply based on available records has been given by the PIO vide letter dated 17.01.2023 and 05.04.2023 and the Commissions upholds the same. Hence, no intervention is required in the instant matter.
A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under GNCTD, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject. In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.Page 5 of 7
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005. The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
Principal Secretary Administrative Reforms Department 7th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat IP. Estate, New Delhi-110002 (for implementation of the Advisory) Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)