Central Information Commission
Mr.Mukesh Bharadwaj vs Dtc, Gnct Delhi on 31 May, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000801/12613
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000801
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Bharadwaj
RZ-C-52, Gopalnagar, Behind Railmaster Factory,
Dhansa Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110043.
Respondent : Ms. Renu Popli
Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager (P&SO), DTC, GNCT Delhi O/o PIO, BBM Complex, Delhi - 110009.
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2010 PIO replied : 22/12/2010 First appeal filed on : 22/12/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 19/01/2011 Second Appeal received on : 17/03/2011 Sl. Information Sought by RTI :
1. Number of Service matter/cases which got decided by CAT in favour of DTC, w.e.f. 01-0l-2006 to 3l-07-2010.
2. Number of Service matter/cases which get decided against DTC.
3. Number and title of the service matter/ cases which were decided in favour of Employee/Ex-
Employee of DTC.
4. Name of the staffs who were re-instated. Please provide the copy of order passed by the competent authority in favour of these employees who were reinstated after Court Orders.
PIO Reply:
Reference your office memo No.RTI/PIO/HQ/2010/005026/2756 dated 18.11.2010 enclosing therewith an application dt.18.11.10 of Shri Mukesh Bharadwaj R/o Satguru 6666, RZ C - 52, Gopal Nagar, Behing Railmaster Factory, Dhansa Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043 seeking information under RTI Act, 2005.
In this connection, it is stated that to such record in a manner as sought for by the applicant in the said RTI application at point Nos.1 to 3 is maintained by this office. As such, the information on these Points cannot be supplied. As regards Point No. 4 of the application, it pertains to Personnel Deptt., as such, requisite information on this point may be had from them.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Provided information is unsatisfactory, incorrect and incomplete.
Order of the FAA:
Appellant had sought information in respect of point no. 1 to 4 of his RTI application. But vide reply dated 15/12/2010. He was informed that no such information as mentioned by the appellant, at Q. Nos. 1 to 3 is maintained by the office. Appellant had sought information for the period of 01.01.2006 to 31.07.2010 regarding number of service matters/cases decided by CAT in favour of and against DTC and the number and the title of these cases. Sh. Hukam Chand (O.S) Legal Cell has informed that CAT had started taking up cases in respect of DTC service matters w.e.f. 01.01.2009, as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The appellant can inspect the record of the cases maintained by the Legal Board and in respect of Q. No. 4, the record maintained by the (PLD) Branch, after giving written intimation to the concerned Board information within 10 days of rejected of order and will be liberty to take photocopy of information pertaining to his RTI application upto one hundred pages. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The appellant not satisfied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Bharadwaj;
Respondent: Ms. Renu Popli, Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager (P&SO); Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Manager (PLD) Head Quarter;
The Appellant points out that despite the order of the FAA on 19/01/2011 the information from PLD has been sent to him only on 10/05/2011. He also states that he has not been given inspection in PLD.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Manager (PLD) is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 21 June 2011 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the Manager(PLD). In case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the Mr. Jagdish Chandra at the time of inspection and the Mr. Jagdish will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra states that the person responsible for providing the information after the order of the FAA was Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Assistant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 20 June 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. He will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Assistant within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. 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.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Assistant will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 24 June 2011 at 02.30pm 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.
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 31 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)