Central Information Commission
Swati Solanki vs Dr. B.R. Sur Homoeopathic Medical ... on 9 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DBRSH/A/2024/601207
Swati Solanki अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Dr. B R Sur Homoeopathic Medical
College, Hospital And Research
Centre, Nanak Pura, Moti Bagh,
New Delhi - 110021 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025
Date of Decision : 08.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 10.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 14.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 11.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide the record of proceedings of both the college committees in the matter of my complaint against sexual harassment in the year 2015 including but not limited to their constitution, qualification of each Page 1 of 10 member, notices and or circulars issued in regard, designation of each member, their relation with the complainant and/or accused, the record of statements of all the witnesses including the complainant and the accused, the reports of both the committees.
Kindly also provide the dates when these reports were accepted or rejected by the head of the institution, please also mention whether they were accepted or rejected by them along with mentioning the name and designation of the person so concerned.
Kindly also provide record of the communication and replies by Dr Asha Chaudhary in the matter to Delhi Commission for Women on my grievances regarding the proceedings of the committees, the act of making my name public among others.
Kindly also provide information regarding if any action was taken against Dr Asha Chaudhary or any other member/members of the committee for revealing my name to public by publishing it at various places in the form of a notice Kindly also provide information about whether the copy of the reports of the committee were provided to me and if not why not ?
Kindly also provide any other information Which is on record regarding the above mentioned, which has not been specifically asked above but is a matter of record"
2. The CPIO (Dr. R C Bawiskar) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.07.2023 stating as under:
"As the information sought is large (332 pages), the complainant can visit in person and inspect it. (For inspection of records no fees for the first hour, and for subsequent hour fraction thereof five rupees per hour will be charged).
or Applicant can obtain the photocopies by depositing the fees of rupees 2 per page (total 664 Rupees) by way of or by demand draft or Indian Postal Order payable to the accounts officer of institute (Dr B.R. Sur Homoeopathic Medical College Hospital And Research Centre.) Page 2 of 10 First and Second ICC report were accepted by then head of the institution Or. Surender Verma on 19th October 2015 and 22nd April 2016 respectively.
Record of communication/reply of Or Asha Chowdhry to OCW is attached.
The committee was immediately resolved and Dr Asha Chowdhry was removed from the post of chairperson of ICC.
Ms. Swati Solanki was tried to be contacted during the proceedings of ICC and after the completion of the enquiry of the committee via email, telephonically and at her postal address as provided by her on the admission form for BHMS course.
Copy of the reports were submitted to Police Station RK per Puram in reference to the FIR number 466 /15 year 2015 under section 354/34 of IPC filed by Ms. Swati Solanki. It was also submitted to the Delhi commission for women as per their instructions and Delhi High court regarding writ petition (criminal) case number 646/2016 tiled by Ms. Swati Solanki against this institute i.e. Dr B.R. Sur Homoeopathic Medical College Hospital And Research Centre, Nankpura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi."
3. The CPIO (Dr. R C Bawiskar) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.07.2023 stating as under:
"This office have received an application of Dr Himanshu Vats dated 20July 2023 with authority letter and receipt to collect the information under your RTI application ID Number 356.
The application has been forwarded to chairperson Sexual harassment committee.
In reference to this application following has been informed by chair person Sexual harassment committee Dr BR Sur Homoeopathic Medical College As per section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013, there is:
"Prohibition of publication or making known contents of complaint and inquiry proceedings. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the contents of the complaint made under section 9, the identity and addresses of the aggrieved woman, Page 3 of 10 respondent and witnesses, any information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings, recommendations of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, and the action taken by the employer or the District Officer under the provisions of this Act shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner.
A complainant/victim of an incident of sexual harassment can access information through the RTI Act, 2005.
As the information sought is highly confidential, the documents can be handed over to the complainant in person else in circumstances where she is unable to come and given authority to a third party, a valid proof of her relationship with the authorised person should be produced and photocopy of the same may be submitted at the time of collection of documents.
Hence in the context of above you are hereby informed to come in person to collect the requisite information..
In the circumstances where you can not come in person then - confirm by written email at [email protected] and also by telephone call at 011 24105298/99 that you have authorized Dr Himanshu Vats to collect the information on your behalf (who has mentioned in the application dated 20/7/2023 that he is your husband) AND Dr Himanshu Vats required to submit a valid proof(marriage certificate) that he is your husband then the requisite information will be handed over to him."
4. The CPIO (Dr. R C Bawiskar) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.08.2023 stating as under:
"With reference to above you are hereby informed that you can access the record on 01.09.2023 at 11 am.
Said record contains third party information which is exempt from disclosure after severance of this part of the record you can have access to the part of record which is related applicants RTI ID 356.Page 4 of 10
For inspection of records, no fees for the first hour and thereafter fees of five rupees per hour (or fraction thereof) will be charges. The fees have to be deposited in cash with AAO."
5. The CPIO (Dr. Prabir Maana) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31.08.2023 stating as under:
"with reference to your power of attorney application dated 24.07.2023 and reply email from [email protected] dated 21/08/23, you are hereby informed that, due to some unexpected family circumstances, the chairperson of sexual harassment committee, will not be available to conduct the scheduled document inspection on 01/9/23. Therefore, we regret to inform you that the inspection has been postponed until further notice.
We will inform you promptly once a new date has been determined.
Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to rescheduling the document inspection soon"
6. The CPIO (Dr. Prabir Maana) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.09.2023 stating as under:
"In continuation of this office email dated 31.08.2023, you are hereby informed that you can access the record on 12.09.2023 (Tuesday) at 11 am.
Said record contains third party information which is exempt from disclosure after severance of this part of the record you can have access to the part of record which is related applicants RTI ID 356.
For inspection of records, no fees for the first hour and thereafter fees of five rupees per hour (or fraction thereof) will be charges. The fees have to be deposited in cash with AAO"
7. The Nodal Officer (ICC) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13- 14.09.2023 stating as under:
"With reference to your earlier request, you were accorded 12.09.2023 (11 am) to inspect the complete file. However, you/ your representative Page 5 of 10 did not come for inspection on 12.09.2023, though custodian of records was present along with related documents/ file.
You are once again given a chance for inspection of the records on
15.09.2023 at 11 am."
8. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.09.2023, held as under:
"As per information of PIO / Custodian of relevant records, the requisite information has already been provided to the applicant in the form of 332 pages on 20.07.2023 with reference to original RTI Application (ID- 356 dated 14.06.2023). Further provided opportunity to inspect the file on 12.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 but neither Applicant nor through Representative turn up for inspection of records. However Applicant is once again allowed to inspect the relevant file on 04.10.2023 (11.30 a.m.) to sort out the grievance, if any. Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
10. The following were present:-
Appellant: Dr. Himanshu Vats, Advocate/Representative of the Appellant attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Dr. Prabir Manna, CPIO-cum-Professor, Dr. R.C. Bawiskar former PIO-cum-Professor and Dr. Archana Narang, Professor-cum-Chairperson (Sexual Harassment Committee), attended the hearing in person.
11. The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that he had already availed the opportunity of inspection of the relevant records by visiting the Respondent's office on 04.10.2023 and the Respondent provided the relevant documents after inspection, but he apprehends that there is a file whose No. starts with digit 76 and specifically the Respondent has not provided a letter bearing No. 76(01)/SHMC/2015/2733. He further reiterated contents of his written submission dated 28.04.2025.
Page 6 of 1012. The Respondent submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is voluminous in nature containing 332 pages and providing all the documents would attract the provision of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the Appellant was offered an opportunity of inspection of the relevant records. However, the Appellant never appeared before them either to demand the information or to inspect the relevant records and instead Dr. Himanshu Vats, who claims to be husband and representative of the Appellant came to their office for inspection of the records. Since the information sought was regarding a sexual harassment complaint which was sensitive in nature, he was asked to provide proof of such as marriage certificate or authorization letter from the Appellant as a measure of abundant precaution. However, the representative of the Appellant never produced the marriage certificate in their office but has provided the power of attorney which they suspect has not been given by the Appellant. She apprised the Bench of the fact that the representative of the Appellant visited their office and misbehaved with the officials by threatening them to file a case against them in the court. She added that nowhere in their replies they have denied the information to the Appellant. Despite all this, their office allowed the representative of the Appellant to inspect the relevant records and to take copies of the requisite documents. She categorically stated that there is no file in the records whose No. starts with digit 76 and files regarding this sexual harassment complaint case bears a number stating with digits 46. She submitted that the representative of the Appellant had made a typographical error while inspecting the relevant records and instead of letter bearing No. 46(01)/SHMC/2015/2733, has himself noted 76(01)/SHMC/2015/2733. There is no letter bearing No. 76(01)/SHMC/2015/2733, in the records and further produced all the relevant files before the Bench.
13. A written submission has been received from the authorized representative of the Appellant vide letter dated 28.04.2025, praying as under:
"1. Action under Section 19(8)(a) (i) of RTI ACT-Direct the Respondent Public Authority to provide the requested information that has been unlawfully withheld or delayed, and ensure that the complainant is not subjected to further undue hardship or obstruction in accessing the information.Page 7 of 10
2. Action under Section 19(8)(b) of RTI ACT-Recommend disciplinary action against the Public Information Officers (PIOs) and other responsible officials of the public authority for their failure to comply with the statutory obligations under the RTI Act, including for harassment, unnecessary delays, and unlawful demands made upon the complainant.
3. Compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of RTI ACT - The Appellant seeks compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 19(8)(b) for the harassment, humiliation, undue hardship, financial loss, mental anguish, and other prejudices suffered due to the unlawful acts of the Respondents.
4. Action under Section 19(8)(c) of RTI ACT-Recommend the imposition of penalties upon the erring PIOs, in accordance with Section 20(1), for their failure to provide the requested information within the prescribed time limits, in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, and for causing undue inconvenience and harm to the complainant.
5. Action under Section 20(1) of RTI ACT - Initiate appropriate penal action, including the imposition of a monetary fine of Rs 25,000, as per the provisions of Section 20(1), against the PIOs for their deliberate and unlawful refusal to provide information in a timely and transparent manner, thereby obstructing the complainant's right to information and violating the provisions of the RTI Act.
6. Action under Section 20(2) of RTI ACT-Recommend appropriate disciplinary action, as per the provisions of Section 20(2), against the PIOs as per the service rules applicable to them for their deliberate and unlawful refusal to provide information in a timely and transparent manner, thereby obstructing the complainant's right to information and violating the provisions of the RTI Act.
7. Action under Section 166A, 201, 204, 466 OF IPC-Recommend penal criminal action against the PIO's and their counterparts at the public authority for their wilful disobedience of the law, tempering with and destroying evidence/public record and forging documents in public record u/s 166A, 201, 204, 466 of Indian Penal Code among others.
8. Any such other order(s) or action(s) as this Hon'ble Central Information Commission may deem appropriate and just, in the interest of justice and in furtherance of the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Decision:
14. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is voluminous in nature containing 332 pages and providing all the documents would attract the provision of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent never denied the information to the Appellant but offered the Appellant to inspect the relevant records. The Page 8 of 10 representative of the Appellant has already visited the Respondent's office and inspected the records in pursuance to which the Respondent has provided the requisite earmarked documents to the representative of the Appellant.
15. It is also observed that the representative of the Appellant has an apprehension that there is a letter bearing No. 76(01)/SHMC/2015/2733, which the Respondent is trying to hide but the Respondent has categorically specified that there is neither any file starting with number 76, nor any letter bearing No. 76(01)/SHMC/2015/2733.
16. The Respondent during the hearing has produced all the relevant files pertaining to the averred sexual harassment complaint case before the bench wherein it is observed that the relevant file pertaining to the averred sexual harassment case starts from number 46 and the Commission has no reason to doubt the Bonafide of the Respondent. The representative of the Appellant himself has erred while noting the letter number and instead of letter bearing No. 46(01)/SHMC/2015/2733, has noted letter No. 76(01)/SHMC/2015/2733. The Commission would like to remind the representative of the Appellant of the fact that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is neither supposed to create information that is not a part of the record, nor is he required to interpret information nor provide clarification. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 9 of 10 Copy To:
The FAA, Dr. B R Sur Homoeopathic Medical College, Hospital And Research Centre, Nanak Pura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi - 110021 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)