Central Information Commission
Mrs.S Mangala vs Airport Authority Of India on 31 January, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL; 01126179548
Decision No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001468/VS/06082
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001468/VS
Dated: 12.02.2014
Appellant: Smt. S. Mangala,
CE2, AAI Residential Colony,
Juhu Airport, Opp. Nanavati Hospital,
Mumbai400056
Respondent: Public Information Officer/
GM (ATC) & GM (HR),
Airport Authority of India,
Southern Region, Chennai Airport,
Chennai600027
Date of Hearing: 31.01.2014
O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 17.1.2013 seeking a wide range of information in connection with (i) log entry in the ARSR log book, (ii) statement of imputation of misconduct made by the Chairman, AAI; and (iii) newspaper reports of a Delhi HC court judgement in a similar sexual harassment case. In all, information has been sought on three broad points covering 28 points in all. The addressee PIO forwarded the RTI application to two concerned PIOs on 18.1.2013
2. On not receiving any reply from the PIO, the appellant filed his first appeal on 5.3.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded pointwise on 15.3.2013 and 8.4.2013. The appellant approached the Commission on 8.5.2013 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to her RTI application of 17.1.2013 and stated that her RTI application is not being responded to by the respondent on one pretext or the other and that it is being stonewalled which has caused her a great distress and has also adversely affected her career.
5. By way of background, the appellant stated that about a year ago, a junior male colleague had misbehaved with her when she was on tour to Chennai from Mumbai and consequently she had to reprimand him, following which that person filed a false complaint against her which led to an enquiry.
6. The appellant, in context of her RTI application, stated that her focus was on the following:
(i) A copy of the enquiry report; and (ii) Specific particulars of any aircraft which may have been affected as a result
of the incident which took place on 14.10.2012 in the Control Room taking into account the allegations made against her.
The appellant explained that she was seeking this information because the inquiring officer had taken the plea that many aircrafts had been affected.
7. The respondent stated that the RTI application was responded to pointwise on 15.3.2013 and 8.4.2013. As regards the copy of the enquiry report being sought by the appellant, it cannot be provided because (i) it is confidential being fact finding report and (ii) it is available only with the Chairman, AAI at New Delhi.
Decision
8. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant information on the two points in para 6 above within 30 days of this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commission Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer