Central Information Commission
Mr.Hakam Singh vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 18 March, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003570/11335Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003570
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Hakam Singh,
J-510/B
Sector 16, Rohini
Delhi-110089
Respondent : Ms. S. R. Spolia
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director
NDMC, GNCT Delhi
Navyug School Education Society,
N.P.Primary School,
Hanuman Lane, New Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2010
PIO replied : No Reply
First appeal filed on : 15/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 05/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 20/12/2010
Information soughtby the appellant
1. Provide photocopy of the advertisement in through which teachers(27 names mentioned in the letter) were recruited on contract basis in NSES.
2. Mention name, category, year and also name of competent authority by whom teachers were selected by it was done without advertisement.
3. Provide details of name, category, post/designation about these 27 teachers selected on regular basis in the recruitment drive 2008-09.
4. Provide name, designation of the mentioned teachers who got relaxation in the RR's in the recruitment drive of 2008-09 on regular basis.
5. Provide photocopies of the initial experience certificate of the mentioned teachers when they were recruited, In case a candidate is holding two positions then provide certificate for the same.
6. Provide details of the PGT/PRT/TGT those who have worked/working on contract basis against backlog of vacancy of SC/SC, OBC from the mentioned contract teachers.
Reply of the PIO No reply after FAA order.
First Appeal:
No reply from the PIO.Page 1 of 3
Order of the FAA:
"PIO is directed to furnish information within 15 days of issue of this order , if the reply has already been provided then a copy of the same should be made available to the appellant within 15 days."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No reply from the PIO, NSES even after FAA order.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 07/02/2011:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Hakam Singh;
Respondent : Ms. S. R. Spolia, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director;
"The Appellant states that no information has been provided to him initially and also after the order of the FAA."
Decision dated 07/02/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant before 28 February 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO, NSES within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO NSES 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. She has further refused to obey the orders of her 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 show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her.
PIO, NSES Ms. S. R. Spolia will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 18 March 2011 at 10.30am alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1). She will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders to the respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions under Section 20(2) against her."
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing on 18/03/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Hakam Singh Respondent: Ms. S.R. Spolia, PIO; Mr. R.K. Verma, Deemed PIO & Jr. Clerk and Mr. Vikas Mathur, AO;
The PIO Ms. Spolia has submitted that the RTI application was received by the Deemed PIO Mr. R.K. Verma on 12/08/2010. She has further submitted that since the work related to the RTI matters has exclusively been dealt by the Deemed PIO & Jr. Clerk Mr. R.K. Verma, the said RTI application and the FAA's order dated 05/10/2010 was also forwarded to Mr. Verma. Mr. R.K. Verma has submitted that in another matter before the Commission the PIO was directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the same Appellant. The inspection was facilitated on 12 & 13/10/2010 and some photocopies were also given to the Appellant. Deemed PIO Mr. R.K. Sharma has submitted no reasonable cause for Page 2 of 3 not providing the information before the FAA's order. Mr. Verma is claiming that since the records were already provided to the Appellant, no information was provided after the FAA's order. After the Commission's order dated 07/02/2011 the information has been provided vide letter dated 25/02/2011.
The Appellant has submitted that the information provided to him is not complete. The PIO has given most of the information to the Appellant but with respect to the following teachers:
1- Rachna Khatri, TGT (computer science).
2- Rashmi Vashisth, PRT.
3- Beena Bahuguna, TGT(Hindi).
4- Meera Dawar, PRT.
5- Ms. Papiya Bannerjee, PGT (English).
6- Anuradha Sharma, TGT (music).
7- Shruti Sharma, PGT/TGT (Chemistry).
8- Ajeet Singh Panwar, PGT(Physics).
Information has not been provided of the years in which they have been employed, name of the competent authority who has approved their appointment and any supporting documents for this. If any of this information is not available in the case of any of the above teachers this will be stated.
The Appellant also wants the initial experience certificated by the following teachers:
1- Ajeet Singh Panwar, PGT(Physics). 2- Shruti Sharma, PGT/TGT (Chemistry). 3- Meera Dawar, PRT. 4- Beena Bahuguna, TGT(Hindi). 5- Rashmi Vashisth, PRT.
The RTI application had been given on 12/08/2010 and the information was not provided. The First Appellate Authority passed an order on 05/10/2010 ordering that the information should be provided within 15 days. However, the information had not been provided in this RTI application. The respondent states that the person responsible for providing the information was Mr. R. K. Verma, Jr. Clerk whose assistance has been sought under Section 5(4). The PIO and Mr. R. K. Verma state that the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI applications and that similar information had been provided to him by another order of the Commission during the same period. They admit that they have made a mistake in not providing the information with relation to this RTI application. The Commission has observed that the Appellant has been seeking voluminous information on and around the same topics and though considerable information has been given to him he appears to be on a fishing expedition asking information by different categories. By now the Commission has realized that enough information is with the Appellant with which if he wishes and believes he has information on wrong doing he could take appropriate action. The explanation of the deemed PIO Mr. Verma that since he had given similar information he did not again repeat the information seems reasonable. In view of this the penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) and disciplinary action against Section 20(2) are dropped.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 05 April 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 18 March 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP) Page 3 of 3