Central Information Commission
Mrs. S. R. Malhotra vs Office Of The Addl. Health Officer, ... on 22 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/2010/000122/6924
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000122
Appellant : Mrs. S. R. Malhotra,
H. No.1, Behind Masjid,
Jung Pura Extension
New Delhi - 110014
Respondent : Dr. Renu Chopra
Public Information Officer
Office of the Addl. Health Officer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
M&CW section, Town Hall,
Delhi-110006
RTI application filed on : 24/08/2009
PIO replied : 23/09/2009
First Appeal filed on : 15/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal filed on : 14/01/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 00/00/2010
Hearing Held on : 00/00/2010
Information soughtPIO's reply
1. Provide certified copy of appellant's Copy of document can be provided on service book along with noting/orders if deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page any
2. Provide certified copy of action taken Action taken report is not available in the report for re-fixation of pension & record, however pay has been refixed at Rs. payment of arrear as per appellants 7600/- on date of retirement & revised LPC application dated 11th august 2007 sent issued & sent to the Office of AO for to office on 12/08/2007 through speed revision of pension post, provide reason for non taking action.
3 Provide certified copy of reply filed on Copy of document can be provided on
behalf of MCD as referred in the ending deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page
paragraph of H.C. of Delhi order dated As regard allegation of discrimination is
28th Nov. 2008 in case of concern the same is totally false &
WP(C)1918/2004 frivolous
Under what circumstances appellant
have not been paid dues/arrears if others
already paid which amount to
discrimination & harassment & financial
loss to applicant
4 Provide certified copy of drawn & due Co-applicants Smt. Gurjit Kaur & Indrajit
statements of the bills with total amount Kaur both are drawing salary from HQ as Page 1 of 3 paid along with voucher nos. amount per HC order paid mode of payment & date of payment to LHV's who were co-
applicants with appellant in case 5 Provide certified copy of office order no. Copy of document can be provided on M&CW/2009/264 dated 02/03/2009 deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page 6 Certified copy of the approval of Copy of document can be provided on commissioner (MCD) dated 27/01/2009 deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page w.e.f 01/01/1973 in terms of HC. Of Delhi dated 28/11/2008 7 Provide certified copy of Pertaining to the office of accounts officer documents/affidavits submitted by (HQ) Town Hall officials of M&CW section of MCD in HC 8 Provide certified copy of office order no. Copy of document can be provided on M&CW/2009/2185 dated 09/02/2009 deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page along with copy of permission granted by MCD for payment to respondent in the matter of HC decision no.
WP(C)1918/2004 9 Provide copy of duty list of Mr. Mukul Copy of document can be provided on Saxena deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page Grounds for First Appeal:
PIO reply is unsatisfactory & not reference to the context of appellant's application Order of the First Appellate Authority:
No order Grounds for Second Appeal:
Incomplete misleading, false information provided Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mrs. S. R. Malhotra;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant had given a letter dated 12/02/2010 stating that she wanted to withdraw the appeal in this matter. The Appellant had sought a photocopy of her service book alongwith notings and orders on 24/08/2009. On 23/09/2009 the PIO Dr. Renu Chopra sent a letter to the Appellant asking her to pay Rs.2/- per page as additional fee without indicating how many pages were involved and how much money she should pay. Hence she could not pay the amount. She mentioned this in the fist appeal which she filed on 15/10/2009. The First Appellate Authority has not given any order in the matter.
The Appellant states that on 12/02/2010 she was called to the office by telephone and Mr. Mukul Saxena, Dealing Clerk told her that a cheque of Rs.138607/- due to her on account of difference of pay was ready and would be given to her if she gave a letter withdrawing the appeal before the Commission. To obtain her dues she has signed a letter withdrawing the appeal. The Commission sees such a move of coercing an appellant to withdraw her appeal as despicable move and will take strict action against officers who act in such a manner. The information sought by the Appellant has not been provided to her at all.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO Dr. Renu Chopra, Additional Director(Hospital Administration) is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 10 March 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO Dr. Renu Chopra, Additional Director(Hospital Administration) within 30 days as required by the law. Mr. Mukul Saxena dealing clerk appears to be responsible for coercing the appellant to withdraw the appeal.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO and deemed PIO are 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.
It appears that the PIO and Deemed PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
The PIO Dr. Renu Chopra, Additional Director(Hospital Administration) and Mr. Mukul Saxena, Dealing Clerk will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 31 March 2010 at 11.00AM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with them.
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 22 February 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SR) Page 3 of 3