Central Information Commission
Mr.Mukesh Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001345/8357
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001345
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Sharma
C-3/20, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi - 53
Respondent : Mr. Tirath Ram
APIO & Assistant Director of Vigilance Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vigilance Department 16-Raj Pur Road, Civil lines, New Delhi 110054 RTI application filed on : 26/02/2010 PIO replied : 15/03/2010 part transferred to PIO Director of Inquiry;
First appeal filed on : 05/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 28/05/2010 Second Appeal received on : 25/05/2010 Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding - • Photocopy of the complete file of the chargesheet No. 1/220/2003, inquiry case No. 3220/DEC/DOI with noting and corresponding sides complete.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) Application forwarded Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO Vigilance is directed to provide the date of decision if any as intimated vide letter dated 26/04/2010 to the appellant within 15 working days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order issued by the FAA Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Sharma Respondent: Mr. Tirath Ram, APIO & Assistant Director of Vigilance ;
Part of information was provided by the PIO on 25/03/2010. However information has not been received from PIO Director of Inquiries. The appellant states that this relates to a charge sheet of 2003and it is amazing that a charge sheet of 2003 is still being inquired into. Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
PIO Director of Inquiries is directed to provide the information to the appellant before 20 July 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO Director of Inquiries within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO 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.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
PIO Director of Inquiries will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 July 2010 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He 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 him.
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 01 July 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) CC:
To, PIO Director of Inquiries through Mr. Tirath Ram, APIO & Assistant Director Vigilance;