Central Information Commission
Indu Gupta vs Mcd on 10 October, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/MCDND/A/2023/625983-UM
Ms. Indu Gupta
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi,
Nodal Pio, Rti Cell,
Vigilance Department,
Head Quarter, 26th Floor, Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.10.2023
Date of Decision : 09.10.2023
Date of RTI application 24.02.2023
CPIO's response 23.03.2023
Date of the First Appeal 08.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's response 04.05.2023
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.05.2023
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on points, as under:-
1. The disciplinary authority Vigilance Department MCD has been unable to fulfil part of its obligation as evidenced by our various letters dated 03.04.2021 (Paper Book vide 58 pages) dairy No. 1579 dated 05.04.2021 vide our reply dated 13.04.2021 (Paper Book vide 163 pages) duly received 15.04.2021 by the office of Vigilance Department Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi and part reply dated 02.06.2021 viaemail dated 4th June 2021 at 12:27) which is a matter of record of undersigned could not find any relief from a disciplinary authority MCD and had remained un rebutted which were never contradicted or denied.
(Please provide the complete information with reason) Page 1 of 3 A. Kindly Provide the name and designation of the MCD officer(s) and staff who didn't follow their duties.
2. Kindly provide a certified copy of complete information together with correspondence/ file noting/document by various officials and the decision of competent authority on my application/letter (Paper Book containing 58 pages) to seek documents along with enclosure vide dated 03.04.2021 vide dairy No.1579 dated 05.04.2021 duly received in the office of Vigilance Department MCD Civic Centre Minto Road, New Dethi-110002.
3. Kindly provide a certified copy of complete information together with correspondence/ file noting/document by various officials and the decision of competent authority on my letter (Paper Book containing 160 + 3 pages) dated 13.04.2021 duly received on 15.04.2021 in the office of Vigilance Department MCD Civic Centre Minto Road, New Deihi-110002.
4. Kindly provide a certified copy of complete information together with correspondence/ file noting/document by various officials and the decision ofCompetent authority on my letter (2 attachments containing a total of 133 pages) dated 02.06.2021 via email dated 4th June 2021 at 12:27) in the office of Vigilance Department MCD Civic Centre Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.
5. Kindly provide the a Certified copy of following information regarding the Inquiry officer MCD in this above case Shri Anil Kumar a. Date of joining MCD by Shri Anil Kumar.
b. Education qualification at joining MCD and as on July 2021 of Shri Anil Kumar. c. Pay Grade at joining MCD and as on July 2021 of Shri Anil Kumar.
6. File noting on movement of RTI petition.
The CPIO, Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, vide letter dated 23.03.2023 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 04.05.2023 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr A Karthikeyan AD Vig., Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that they had requested the correspondence and the decision taken on her letter paper book to Vigilance Department. She further added that it is not third-party information as the letter paper book has been written by the Appellant herself and she should be provided the information.Page 2 of 3
The Respondent submitted that the file is pending in inquiry in Directorate of Enquiries and is likely to be concluded in 1-2 months. Therefore, the information has been refused u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
The Appellant submitted that they required the documents for reference of the Charge sheet filed against the Appellant, Mrs. Indu Gupta. The Respondent in reply said that the files are with the concerned authorities.
The Appellant further said that they did not request for enquiry reports and hence it does not impede the process of investigation.
The Respondent in reply said that after the inquiry is completed, only then they can provide the available information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to collect the information from the concerned authorities and furnish the point wise, correct information on Point no. 1,2,3,4 and 6 of the RTI Application to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 45 days from the receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 09.10.2023 Page 3 of 3