Central Information Commission
Mr.Rajeev Chadha vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001777/8975
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001777
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Chadha
B-98, Ground Floor,
DDA Colony,
Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi-110028
Respondent : Mr. Anjum Masood
Public Information Officer & ADE (HQ) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education Old Secretariat, Civil Lines Delhi- 110054 RTI application filed on : 05/04/2010 PIO replied : 30/04/2010 First appeal filed on : 03/05/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 26/05/2010 Second Appeal received on : 25/06/2010 Information Sought The Appellant sought information regarding -
• Query 1- Whether vigilance clearance can be granted to the Principal of a govt. school under Directorate of Education for the purpose of retirement particularly when a complaint case is pending against him in the vigilance branch of the Directorate of Education. • Query 2- Please provide the copy of the rules under which the vigilance clearance report of a teacher can be withheld particularly when there is no complaint or disciplinary proceedings pending against the concerned teacher on the date due for his first financial upgardation (MRCP). • Query 3- Please provide the certified copy of the Vigilance Clearance Report for the purpose of retirement in respect of Smt. Vijay Laxmi Rani, Ex- Principal Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Naraina, 1st shift issued by the vigilance branch of Directorate of Education and Directorate of Vigilance. IP Estate, New Delhi?
• Query 4- Whether a complaint case was pending on 31/12/2006 against Smt. Vijay Laxmi Rani, Ex- Principal Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Naraina, 1st shift in the Vigilance Branch of Directorate of Edu. If yes then please provide the certified copies of the complaint along with the file notings. • Query 5- Please provide the copy of the rules under which the vigilance clearance was granted to the Principal Smt. Vijay Laxmi Rani, Ex- Principal Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Naraina, 1st shift for the purpose of retirement particularly when a complaint case was already pending against her in the vigilance branch of DDE in 31/12/2006?
• Query 6- When the complaint handling committee of DDE filed the complaint made by the Appellant regarding his forged online transfer?
Page 1 of 3• Query 7- Please provide the name of the next authority above the competent authority to be approached when the letter has taken an arbitrary decision in a complaint case regarding forged online transfer.
• Query 8- Is it possible that a teacher eligible for 1 st financial upgardation on completing 10 years in service on 27/02/2008 can be withheld on the grounds that disciplinary proceedings/complaint case is initiated by the department against the concerned teacher on 20/02/2009? • Query 9- Please provide the date when disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant has been ordered by the competent authority at HQ, DDE.
• Query 10- Please provide the copy of the rules under which disciplinary proceedings has been ordered by the competent authority at HQ, DDE against the Appellant. • Query 11- Please provide the copy of the rules under which vigilance clearance report cannot be issued to the teacher against whom disciplinary proceedings has been ordered by the competent authority at HQ, DDE.
• Query 12- Please provide the copy of the file notings regarding disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant ordered by the competent authority at HQ, DDE. • Query 13- Please provide the copy of the para wise response submitted by PIO(HQ) to CIC under decision no. 1032/IC(A)/2007/F.No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00254 dated 12/07/2007. • Query 14- Please provide the copy of the complaint or the vigilance enquiry pending against the Appellant in the HQ, DDE till 31/12/2009.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) • Query 1- The point is clarifactory in nature hence it is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. • Query 3(a) - The file in which matter of VCR is dealt in year 2006 has not been traced. However the same may be obtained from the District concerned • Query 3(b) - Does not pertain to this branch.
• Query 4- The point is clarifactory in nature hence it is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. • Query 5- A copy of guidelines dated 07/08/2002 is enclosed as Annexure A. • Query 6- 18/03/2009 • Query 7- The point is clarifactory in nature hence it is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. • Query 8- Employee concerned should be clear from Vigilance Angle as on due date of MACP as well as on date of implementation of the orders. (As per the DDE ACP Cell). • Query 9- No such date is available in the Vigilance Branch (HQ) • Query 10- No such date is available in the Vigilance Branch (HQ) • Query 11- Vigilance Branch (HQ) does not issue VCR to teachers. • Query 12- No such date is available in the Vigilance Branch (HQ) • Query 14- No such date is available in the Vigilance Branch (HQ) Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The appellant was present. APIO(H.Q.) alongwith O.S.(Vigilance Branch) & O.S.(ACP Cell) represented the Department. The Appeal was heard.
I have perused the original RTE application, reply furnished by the PIO(H.Q.) and appeal filed by him. The following directions are issued :-
Q. No. RTI Remarks
Of application
1,7 To be given by Vigilance branch
2,6,8 Satisfactory reply has been given
3,4,9,10, PIO (HQ) will transfer RTI application
Page 2 of 3
11,12, 14 To DDE (SW-A) PIO
5 Annexure to be given by Vigilance branch
13 Appellant may inspect relevant file in 10 days
ADE(Vigilance Branch) is directed to provide the information explained above to the appellant through PIO(HQ) within 15 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Chadha;
Respondent: Mr. Anjum Masood, Public Information Officer & ADE (HQ); Mrs. Indira Rani Singh, DDE(SW-A), Vasant Vihar; Mr. Hari Prasad, OS (Vigilance Branch), Old Secretariat;
The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that somebody forged his signature in 2006 on a transfer application which resulted in considerable harassment for him. He has filed a number of RTI Applications to get information on this and feels that the debarment has not taken proper action on his complaint of forgery. In multiple replies given on similar question some contradiction have drift in the replies given by the PIO. However, after a discussion with the PIO and the appellant it appears that the PIO is willing to give all the Information needed by the appellant on the record. In view of this it has been agreed that the appellant's purpose may be served if all the relevant files are shown to him. The appellant has agreed to go with the PIO/DDE (SW-A) Ms. Indira Rani Singh at her office to inspect the all the relevant files. Certain files would have to be inspected at the Head Office (Vigilance Branch) and the appellant will inspect the files at the Office of the PIO(Vigilance) Old Secretariat on 17 August 2010 from 3.00PM onwards. Both the PIOs will show relevant files to the appellant. If there are files which the appellant feels should exist but are not in existence the PIOs will give a statement stating that such files are not in existence.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIOs will give an inspection of the relevant files to the appellant. He will be given attested copies of records which he wants free of cost upto 500 pages. 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 16 August 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN) Page 3 of 3