Central Information Commission
Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan & Shri Guru ... on 1 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000012/4220Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000012
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Appellant : Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal
1, Hari Nagar, Ashram Near Shalimar Cinema,
New Delhi.
Respondent 1) : Mr. H.B.Singh
PIO
Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan,
Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib,
New Delhi-110001.
Respondent 2) : Mr. Kulwant Singh,
Principal
Shri Guru Harkrishan Industrial Training Center
Opposite 20 Block, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi - 100018
RTI application filed on : 01/10/2008
PIO replied : 07/11/2008
First Appeal filed on : 10/11/2008
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal filed on : 09/04/2009
Information sought:
1) The Appellant had sought information regarding institution wise details of. employees appointed & promoted w.e.f 09/02/2007 to 15/09/2008 in:
a) Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology, G-8, Rajouri Garden.
b) Guru Nanak Institute of Management, Punjabi Bagh.
c) Guru Hargobind Institute of Management& Information Technology, Hargobind Enclave.
d) Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute, Vasant Vihar.
e) Guru Tegh Bahadur Industrial Training Centre, Nanak Piao.
f) Guru Tegh Bahadur Industrial Training Centre, Tilak Nagar.
2) Wether these appointments were made in accordance with Chapter III & IV of "Employees Service Regulations 1992" of DSGMC.
3) If the above said regulations were not applicable for appointment & promotions of teaching staff, Admin. staff, & Accounts staff of the mentioned institutions, then the Appellant be provided with a copy of the Recruitment rules that are applicable therein.
4) In the absence of the RR , mention the eligibility criteria for the mentioned category of Staff.
5) Enlist institution wise details of those employees who were presently working but do not fit in the eligibility criteria.
6) In which case, will such employees be terminated and action sought against the concerned Appointing authority.
7) If there was a seniority list of all the appointments in all the GHPS institutions and DSGMC offices, a copy of the same be provided to the Appellant.
8) Incase there is no seniority list , were the transfers from GHPS institutions to DSGMC offices (vice-versa) were sought by favoured choice or as a matter of punishment.
9) A copy of the Institution wise details of employees who were appointed after 09/02/2007 but transferred before 15/09/2008 be provided to the Appellant.
10) In reference to the Sec-36 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 , wether the Chairman, Manager, Treasurer of all the 6 institutions included in the sub-committee as mentioned in the Act. And if under Sec-21 of the Indian Penal code any action has been sought against any one covered under Sec-36, a copy of the same be provided.
PIO's REPLY:
The reply was handed over to the Appellant personally by the PIO on 07/11/2008. It includes voluminous details in tabular format.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete information received.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply , incomplete information received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 22 July 2009: "The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal with Mr. Baljit Singh and Mr. Ajai Kumar adv. Respondent: Mr. I.S. Bakshi advocate and Mr. N.S. Badhan, PIO The PIO has given information which the Appellant contends is incomplete. The Respondent states that he has given a vast amount of information and he believes that it is complete. Since that is a large amount of information the Commission directs the appellant to identify the information which has not been provided and give it to the PIO before 30 July 2009. The PIO will then provide the information identified by the Appellant before 30 August 2009."
Commission's Decision dated 22 July 2009:
"The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the balance information as identified by the Appellant before 30 August 2009."
Since the order of the Commission was not complied. The Commission vide its letter dated 12/01/2010 directed the PIO to present himself before the Commission on 01/02/2010 to showcause why penalty should not be imposed on him.
Relevant facts recorded during Showcause hearing on 01 February 2010: Appellant: Mr. Inder Mohan Singh representing Respondent:Mr. Kulwant Singh, Principal (Shri Guru Harkrishan Industrial Traning Center and Mr. H.B.Singh, PIO Gurudwara Sikh Management Committee.
Mr. Kulwant Singh has provided the information on most of the queries but states that information regarding query 3, 4, & 5 is available with the Gurudwara Management Committee hence must be provided by the PIO Mr. H.B.Singh. Mr. H.B.Singh who is present has assured the Commission that he will provide the information to the Appellant before 15 February 2010.
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 01 February 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SP)