Central Information Commission
Dr. Sanjai Sharma vs University Of Delhi on 7 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604103
Dr Sanjai Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: University of Delhi,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.10.2023 FA : 14.12.2023 SA : 30.01.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 13.02.2025
Date of Decision: 07.04.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Copy of notification issued to account section for recovery of TA (Transport allowance) of non-teaching staff for covid 19 period with details of month for which TA have been recovered.
2. Copy of notification issued to employees to attend duty (describing reason for calling them) during the covid-19 period for those months for which TA paid to them.Page 1 of 15
3. Attendance record of those employees who attended college in physical mode for the period for which TA was paid to them.
4. Copy of notification send to individual employees informing/explaining reason to them for recovery of their TA for the Covid 19 period and their consent on the same.
5. Copy of note sheet placed before competent authority (Governing Body) for getting permission before recovery of TA and order/resolution thereof of competent authority/GB for the same...." etc.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 14.12.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.01.2024.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Prof. Sachin Mittal, CPIO & Subash Chandra Agarwal, RTI Consultant attended the hearing in person.
5. The Appellant relied on the exhaustive written submissions filed by him on 05.02.2025, stating inter alia as under:
"5. When the Second Appeal CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 and CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 dated 31.10.2023 of undersigned were listed for hearing on 14/06/2024 and the information is sent to both the parties then the in hurry and in a casual approach, PIO rejected the RTI application (filled online vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60011 dated 25.10.2023) on 03.06.2024 at 15.44.52 pm, simply by saying reason of rejection "Others" without uploading any document related to reply and has knowingly and intentionally mentioned that reply has attached while No documents of reply had been uploaded on the online portal. (Copy of screen shot is annexed as Annexudel for your kind reference).Page 2 of 15
6. Also, PIO had not supplied reply as he had mentioned online that reply is attached, through any means of communication to the undersigned. This is another falls statement had been written by PIO on online portal to mislead applicant.
7. On the same line and on the same day i.e. on 03.06.2024 within a gap of two hours, FAA disposed-off the Appeal of undersigned at 17:13:18 pm by saying in his decision that PIO has replied to the applicant vide DDUC/RTI/Reply/2013/256 dated 31.05.2024 which was never reached to applicant.
8. All the activities related to reply of RTI application and disposing of FA were performed after expire of the limit of days fixed in the RTI Act. RTI application is disposed of by the both responsible authorities after a long period that is nearly after a delay of eight months which is clear cut violation of rules established in the Act and all these are done deliberately, knowingly and intentionally to hide the information and escaped from accountability.
That not entertain of RTI application by the PIO shows his casual approach towards the Act. Also, decision not taken by FAA on appeal filed by applicant encouraged PIO for his irresponsible behaviour and casual approach in adhering the guidelines of the Act. Both the authorities are crushing the spirit of RTI Act and violating every norms which has been provided to the citizen of India and in any way trying to hide the information which is in larger interest of public.
Hence, from above facts this may observed that PIO has violated the norms set for supplying information under RTI Act-2005. It seems that FAA is also a part of PIO decision for not supplying information because of all information directly related to the office of the Officiating Principal and is custodian of documents.
In the case of Sh Rakesh Kumar Gupta (erstwhile CPIO) union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central information commission & anr... Respondents (W.P. (C) 900/2021 and CMAPPL. 2395/2021, decided on January 22, 2021), The Honourable High Court of Delhi has quoted the following extract:Page 3 of 15
R.K Jain v. Union of India (LPA 369/2018, decided on 29th August, 2019) Honourable High Court of Delhi has recognised that the PIO, being the custodian of information or documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in cases of default, the penal action is to be invoked against the CPIO only.
xxx Para wise submission to the submission of PIO before Hon'ble CIC vide dated 30.01.2025 which was delivered on 04.02.2025 by post:
In the para-1 It is wrongly stated by PIO that the information on the six point was responded on 31.05.2024. He has cited the reason of rejection as information sought are voluminous and scattered in too many files and meanwhile petition is filled before FAA. Petition before FAA was filled well after waiting response nearly for two months of PIO response who never replied to any point, out of six information sought and summarily said that information are voluminous and scattered and wrongly PIO has uploaded statement that reply is attached and this was did on 03.06.2024 nearly after 8 months of filling RTI application.
In para-2-Though no reply had been supplied by the PIO and in the present submission he has not mentioned any justified reason separately for each six points for not providing information except saying that information is of personal in nature exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Reference given to this para does not relates to the present matter as the public money is being used in paying TA to those period which are specified under various restrictions due to Covid-19 period and only those employees are allowed to attend the office who are deputed for essential work and accordingly TA was allowed to pay them. Since TA is Disclosable under section-4(1) (x) of the RTI Act and can only be decided on the basis of attendance record of employees who attended the office physically on direction of competent authority so for maintaining transparency and accountability of officers in performing duty for which they are paid TA from public money is in the larger public interest and hence cannot be denied.Page 4 of 15
In the para-3 referred is also have no relation to the information sought in the present RTI which are not of the personal nature and are in larger public interest related to transparency and accountability of officers in delivering their duties as a public servant.
In the para-4 PIO has mentioned that the applicant is a habitual RTI applicant and filling RTI applications indiscriminately with the college with sole aim to pressurize the college-authorities for his such demands which are neither feasible nor allowed as per rules of Delhi University. This allegation is under mala-fide intention and only to divert the matter of providing information as nowhere he has mentioned that which demands, applicant want to settle under pressure. Also this not the platform to discuss any kind of dispute. Applicant came before the CIC only after refusal of providing information without any justified reason and not entertaining the application and due to violation of norms set in the RTI Act. I have not come with any aim for setting personal goal by filling RTI application.
In various case of RTI application, applicant came before Hon'ble CIC after denying information by the PIO and FAA without any justified reason and even not providing information related to applicant on asking through simple applications which he has right to excess as an employee of the college. Some of personal information related to applicant are also not being provided forcing applicant to file RTI.
PIO also blaming for filling RTI with proxy name of "Nirmala" without any proof. PIO has himself send a reply of RTI of Ms. Nirmala at address of applicant intentionally and mala-fiddly by typing address of applicant with the address of Ms. Nirmala in the name of Nirmala within the one window of envelope which was received by the wife of applicant at home due to envelope bearing college name and the same envelope was returned to the PIO by the applicant saying to deliver it to the address of information seeker to which applicant has no any relation. For this act PIO has already regretted in writing to the applicant. The PIO has obtained applicant's address from office using his position while the address of applicant in the office of Principal is under fiduciary relationship but is disclosed to the PIO without any consent of the applicant for which Page 5 of 15 applicant asked office of the Principal that why the personal information of applicant is disclosed to the PIO of the college who used it to malign the image of applicant in the college and also before the wife of the applicant by sending a letter in the name of a female RTI seeker to the address of applicant who is unaware to the such female information seeker but no response was given by the office of the Principal, this shows the deliberate intention of both officer to hide every information and act in a discriminatory manner.
In this para, PIO has mentioned that earlier two cases CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 and CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 are dismissed while the same was entertained by you and decided on the facts contained therein. In the said appeal PIO has provided a wrong information and your honest had advised to the applicant to pursue his grievance at appropriate platform. So stating that both the case of applicant was dismissed is wrong.
In last para It has been mentioned by the PIO that petitioner is misusing RTI Act is in no manner justified as the applicant has right to access information related to him and of larger public interest raising question on transparency and accountability of government officials. So the cited statement of PIO shows his mala-fide intention of damaging applicant's image in accessing information through RTI.
xxx In the above six points, no points are of personal in nature and voluminous and must not scattered as there is no long gap between the Covid-19 period and RTI application, also these issues are related to finance and being used public money to benefitting someone through paying TA during Covid-19 period. So saying that information are of personal in nature, voluminous and scattered are wrongly stated to hide information. All information are related to public money and paid to the employee in the form of salary component which are disclosable under section-4(1) (x) of RTI Act. Any decision related to recovery of any amount is done under the decision of competent authority and this is a public document as minutes of Governing Body is digitally Page 6 of 15 published. So note sheet of decisions and directions cannot be personal information. Affiliated College act under the rules of Delhi University and any financial decision was implemented only after approval from Executive Council so for the recovery of TA paid to the employees during Covid-19 period is made only on the basis of circular of DU and any circular placed on digital platform cannot of personal in nature. Letter of recovery or order of recovery is an official letter which was served among the employee for information before recovery made so is also not a personal information. Transparency and accountability is necessary in financial operation which is received from taxpayers and thus these information are in larger interest of public. Since as per DoPT circulars/orders TA is paid only to only those employees who attended the office physically during their service period and especially in case of Covid-19. During the period of Covid-19 and during peak period of Covid-19 only those employees were asked to attend office which have to perform essential duties and thus for paying TA to those who attended the office and recovery of paid TA those who were not attended the office must be published on public platform as the money used are of taxpayers. So attendance record of employees which is proof of performing their duty on the basis of which salary are paid cannot be personal information other than those defined as personal. Though those information which are related to transparency and accountability of government employees and are in larger public interest where public money is involved and thus must be disclosed.
xxx RTI filed by the applicant is genuine and to seek information only when it required and denied by the college in case of personal information related to applicant and in case of those act and decision of authority which are in larger interest of public and related to transparency and accountability in the functioning of the college.
In maximum cases of RTI application some time filled due to rigidness of office in providing information which comes directly under the control of FAA and office acts only on the direction of FAA as Principal of the College, PIO quote that the information are Voluminous and Scattered and are of personal in nature.Page 7 of 15
The applicant comes before Hon'ble CIC for information only under his constitutional right to have information related to him and/or which are in larger public interest so that there is transparency and accountability be reflect in the functioning of Institution without any targeted and mala-fide intention of authority towards some employee of the college and not for settlement of dispute but PIO try to project it as a matter of dispute which is not true."
6. The Respondent also submitted on the lines of their written submissions dated 30.01.2025 stating inter alia as under:
"The petitioner filed his online RTI application DDUCO/R/2023/60011 dated 25.10.2023 seeking information on six points which was responded vide reply dated
31.05.2024 declining information being voluminous and scattered in too many files citing para 37 of verdict dated 09.08.2011 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter "Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) versus Aditya Bandopadhyaya" (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011). The petition in the meanwhile had filed his online First Appeal DDUCO/A/2023/60007 dated 14.12.2023 which was decided vide an order dated 31.05.2024 intimating that the RTI application had been responded by that time.
Otherwise also information sought in RTI application is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act being personal in nature in regard to employees about whom information is sought. Reference is invited to Delhi High Court verdict dated 31.08.2020 in the matter "Dr RS Gupta vs Govt. Of NCTD & Others" (LPA 207/2020) xxx It may be brought to kind attention of your hour that the petitioner who is an employee of the College is a habitual RTI applicant filing RTI applications indiscriminately with the College with sole aim to pressurize the college-authorities for his such demands which are neither feasible nor allowed as per rules of Delhi University. Same has been referred before your honour during CIC-hearings on his earlier petitions. Your honour vide orders dated 24.06.2024 in file-numbers CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 and CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 dismissed these petitions Page 8 of 15 filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner Dr Sanjai Sharma even tried to file a petition routed through University of Delhi in proxy name "Nirmala" in file-number CIC/UODEL/A/2023/631492, which was also dismissed by your honour.
The petitioner is misusing RTI Act by filing so many RTI applications with the College in a regular manner, a tendency held misuse of RTI Act in several verdicts from courts and Central Information Commission. Some of verdicts from Delhi High Court on misuse of RTI Act are:
Verdict dated 08.10.2015 (WPC 7911/2015) in the matter "Rajni Maindiratta versus PIO, Director of Education (North-West B)"
Verdict dated 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar and others"
Verdict dated 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others"
Kind attention of your honour is also drawn to CIC-verdict dated 25.02.2011 in file-number CIC/LS/C/2009/000770-DS in the matter "Dr Rajender K Singla versus Directorate of Higher Education (Chandigarh), decision-part of which is reproduced as hereunder:
Decision
4. After hearing the averment of the respondents and on perusal of the facts on record, the Commission concludes that undoubtedly, the appellant is misusing the RTI Act to settle personal scores with his former employer. The commission rules that such vexatious applications can be summarily dismissed at the level of the CPIO since it is obvious that these applications are not being preferred in public interest and are in fact adversely impacting the functioning of the public authority Instead of strengthening it, which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.' xxx..."Page 9 of 15
Upon a query from the Commission asking the CPIO as to why no inputs have been recorded in their written submissions for their failure to provide any reply to the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act, the feeble excuse was that the dealing hand was to be blamed and remaining emphasis was on the repetitiveness of Appellant's RTI Application(s).
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has displayed a rather defiant and arrogant approach in the instant matter as the omission of not having provided any reply to the RTI Application for about 8 months is sought to be conveniently ignored without feeling the need to explain or justify the gross violations on their part. Rather, overstretching efforts are being made to prove that the Appellant is a repetitive RTI applicant without even relying on any supporting document in this regard and merely harping on the dismissal of two earlier cases of the Appellant heard against them by this bench vide Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 & CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599. It is irksome to note that even in this reliance placed by the CPIO, it has been conveniently ignored that the bench had noted adverse remarks against the same CPIO in both of these cases as well. Nonetheless, to assist Prof. Sachin Mittal, CPIO, in recalling these remarks, the same is reproduced hereunder:
Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595
"8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that although the factual merits of the information provided by the CPIO cannot be called into question within the confines of the RTI Act, however, the failure of the CPIO to provide a reply to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame of the Act on the pretext of being in the process of creating information to facilitate the Appellant is not warranted. The CPIO ought to provide the information as per the availability of records and is required to strictly adhere to the time stipulations contained in the RTI Act. Further, even if the CPIO intended to facilitate the Appellant, it was incumbent upon the CPIO to have provided an interim reply to the RTI Application while adhering to the time frame prescribed in the Act. To this effect the CPIO is Page 10 of 15 cautioned and advised to remain careful in the future. Furthermore, the Commission also takes exception to the fact that the CPIO failed to serve a copy of their written submissions dated 10.06.2024 to the Appellant in advance as opposed to the directions contained at point no.4 of the notice of hearing issued by the Commission. The CPIO is reminded that in future such omissions will not be viewed liberally."
Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 "8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that although the FAA's order warrants no intervention, the original reply of the CPIO was concededly deficient in terms of the reply provided to points 3, 5 & 6 of the RTI Application as the CPIO failed to specify therein the unavailability of the Diary No. & Date or the factum of unavailability of information sought for at point no.6 in a cogent manner. The CPIO is hereby cautioned against providing vague or incomplete replies in the future and to desist from using abbreviations like N/A in their replies to indicate unavailable information in a non- descript manner and wait for the FAA to describe the abbreviation to the RTI applicants. Further, the Commission also takes exception to the fact that the CPIO failed to serve a copy of their written submissions dated 10.06.2024 to the Appellant in advance as opposed to the directions contained at point no.4 of the notice of hearing issued by the Commission. The CPIO is reminded that in future such omissions will not be viewed liberally."
8. The list of omissions being noted on the part of the CPIO is baffling to note ; in addition to the CPIO having caused deemed refusal to provide the information at the original instance; having provided the averred reply incidentally in the aftermath of the averred two earlier appeal(s) listed by the Commission; the Appellant having alleged that the RTI Application was merely disposed of on the online portal on 03.06.2024 without even uploading the reply; the reply thus provided squarely denied the information as being scattered and voluminous without exercising due diligence in perusing the queries to determine the scope of providing permissible and readily Page 11 of 15 available information; further at this stage, the Respondent has even introduced Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny the information again in a square manner as though all of the RTI queries seek personal information of other employees.
9. Adding insult to injury is the order of the FAA which was issued on the same date as that of the CPIO's reply dated 31.05.2024, and the absurd observations made thereunder for disposing the First Appeal is that the CPIO has furnished the reply on 31.05.2024, when the First Appeal was filed on 14.12.2023 alleging non-receipt of any reply of the CPIO within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act.
Such an abhorrent approach of the FAA coupled with the persistent arbitrary stand taken by the CPIO in the instant matter reveals no remorse whatsoever on the part of the Respondent office in having clearly stifled the RTI mandate.
More so, a conjoint observation of the CPIO's past and present conduct and arguments simply suggests a sense of vendetta rather than executing their efforts in setting into motion the RTI regime by ensuring proper disposal of RTI Application(s) & First Appeal(s) filed by the Appellant.
10. Now, therefore, the CPIO, Prof. Sachin Mittal is hereby directed to appear in person before the bench on 08.05.2025 at 1.15 pm to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for the above noted string of omissions and absolute lack of any sense of statutory responsibility entrusted upon him by virtue of the RTI Act causing a seemingly deliberate obstruction to the Appellant's right to information. The CPIO is directed to ensure his presence during the hearing in person without fail and to not send his representatives or advocates, as the liability to explain the omissions noted above for imposition of penalty rests with the CPIO. The failure to comply with the directions contained in this order may result in the imposition of ex-parte penalty on the CPIO.
Page 12 of 15The FAA is also directed to present themselves before the bench on the above said date & time to duly explain the omissions noted on their part while dealing with the instant First Appeal.
11. As regards the information sought for in the RTI Application, while the Respondent has remained at an absolute loss to justify the denial of the information citing varied yet jumbled reasons so far, it is observed that, points 1, 2 & 6 seek for information which is of generic nature, i.e. explicitly not featuring or concerning any particular third party but addressing a category of employees in general. While points 3, 4 & 5 specifically seek for attendance record and letters issued to individual employees as well as related notesheet, which may ostensibly entail the disclosure of personal information of third parties, even if it includes the records related to the Appellant.
Therefore, the CPIO is now directed to provide a revised point-wise reply to the Appellant on points 1, 2 & 6 of the RTI Application incorporating the available information and indicating unavailability, where applicable. Further, for points 3, 4 & 5, the available information restricted to the Appellant's case of TA and his attendance record, shall be provided. In other words, the names and identifying particulars of third parties and/or personal information of any third party that attract the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on these points, such contents shall be redacted in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act. The CPIO is, however, directed to steer clear of providing any mechanical replies or invoking exemptions without proper applicability or justification. The information to be provided to the Appellant in compliance with this order shall be free of cost and the directions of the Commission should be complied within 15 days of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
12. The Appellant is advised that the heavy reliance placed by him in his written submissions on various case laws to insist on disclosure of the attendance record and TA related information of other employees citing larger public interest cannot be acceded to.
Page 13 of 15Here, the Commission is convinced with the reliance placed by the Respondent in their written submissions on the case laws justifying the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act with respect to the attendance record and salary related aspects of third parties. The pertinent and most relevant case law being the 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 & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.
13. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 07.04.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College, CPIO, University Of Delhi, Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078 Page 14 of 15
2. Dr. Sanjai Sharma Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)