Central Information Commission
Anita Garg vs Directorate Of Education on 13 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2023/612675
ANITA GARG .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Deputy Director of Education,
Zone VI, C Block, Dilshad
Garden, Delhi - 110093 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08-05-2024
Date of Decision : 10-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18-11-2022
CPIO replied on : 10-02-2023
First appeal filed on : 06-01-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20-02-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10-03-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18-11-2022 seeking the following information regarding Nehru Memorial Co-Ed Middle School, (Govt. aided taken over school) Mandoli Road, Chanderlok, Delhi-110093.:Page 1 of 6
"1. It is correct that during the period May 2008 to January 2022, the then School In charge teachers namely Sh. C. B. Tomar, Smt. Ved Bhardwaj, Smt. Neelam Kain, Smt. Rajni Sharma were senior most teacher at the school at their respective time. (Yes/No)
2. Is it correct that during the period 2010 to April 2014 Smt. Ved Bhardwaj (PET) acted as school in charge despite pending Criminal case No.10867/2009 titled "Anita Vs. Ved Bhardwaj & ors." and Civil suit RFA.193/2016 titled 'Anita Garg vs. Ved Bhardwaj & Ors. (Yes/No)
3. Is it correct that during September 2020 to 31-01-2022 Smt. Rajni Sharma (TGT Eng) was made school in charge despite Pending Criminal case [.CRL LP 104/2020 titled "Anita Garg Vs. Stage & ors." and Civil suit RFA.193/2016 titled 'Anita Garg vs. Ved Bhardwaj & Ors.'] in Delhi High Court (Yes/No)
4. Is it correct that I sent an e-mail dated 03.08.2020 to you about detail of aforesaid pending Criminal & Civil cases in Delhi High Court against Smt. Rajni Sharma (TGT), Smt. Ved Bhardwaj (RET PET) & Smt. Maya Prasad (Ret TGT).
(Yes/No).
5. Pls provide copy of document/note sheet through which HOS sent detail of above two pending court cases to the higher authorities mentioned under my email dated 03.08.2020.
6. Is it correct that in the month of September 2020 you made the then senior most teacher Smt. Rajni Sharma school in charge and as school in charge she received school records from outgoing in charge Smt. Neelam Kain (Dom. Sci). (Yes/No).
7. Is it correct that Smt. Rajni Sharma received school charge and records from Smt. Neelam Kain in the office of original building of the school. (Yes/No)
8. Is it correct that after her retirement on 31.01.2022 Smt. Rajni Sharma has not handed over the school records back to the school even till date (Yes/No)
9. In case Smt. Rajni Sharma has handed over the school records then provide detail of recipient teacher. her seniority number and when and in what capacity the said teacher received the school records from Smt. Rajni Sharma.
10. Pls provide current seniority list of staff members of the school.
Page 2 of 611. Pls provide copy of DoE rule and school-order under which the Smt. Rajni Sharma has been allowed to keep school records in her custody even after her retirement on 31.01.2022.
12. Is it correct that while processing terminal benefits cases of Smt. Rajni Sharma you as HOS issued NO DUES CERTIFICATE (NDC) dated 28.04.2022 in her favour certifying that "no money, thing or record of the school is lying with Smt. Rajni Sharma, TGT who retired on 31.01.2022" (Yes/No)
13. Kindly provide the rule position under which HOS issued NDC in favor of Smt. Rajni Sharma despite huge quantity of school records lying in her custody at that time.
14. Pls provide copy of document in which HOS mentioned detail of pending court cases against Rajni Sharma. Ved Bhardwaj & Maya Prasad while processing their terminal benefits.
15. Pls provide copy of documents in which HOS disclosed detail of pending court cases against Rajni Sharma, Ved Bhardwaj & Maya Prasad while processing their vigilance clearance.
16. Is it correct that despite pending court cases vigilance clearance has been given to Smt. Rajni Sharma, Ved Bhardwaj & Maya Prasad. (Yes/No)
17. Is it correct that during your tenure in the month of December 2019, school audit was conducted in the original premise of the Nehru school. (Y/N)
18. Is it correct that during this audit, an expense of app.11000/- was incurred for procurement of misc. items to facilitate audit team like availability of computer/printer/UPS on rent, refreshment of audit team, photocopies of documents, stationary, electrical and cleaning items etc. (Yes/No).
19. Is it correct that within your information above audit expense were made by Smt. Neelam Kain and Smt. Anita Garg from their own pocket. (Y/N)
20. Is it correct that even till date (i.e., after a gap of almost three years) the said expense has not been re-imbursed to these two teachers by the school. (Yes/No)
21. In case the said expense has been re-imbursed to above two teachers, kindly provide copies of such documents to that effect, mode and proof of payment.
Page 3 of 622. Kindly provide the rule position under which above two teachers were told to bear aforesaid expenses from their own pocket during school audit.
23. Kindly provide copy of bills from January 2020 to August 2022 showing expenses incurred for various office work like procurement of A4 sheets, noting sheets, computer printouts, UDISE work, file covers, online ID creation, misc. stationary items, photocopying, electricity repair expenses, cleaning items etc. along with the detail of person who paid for such expense out of his/het pocket.
24. Copy of payment proof made in favour of employee who paid school expense in point no.24."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 10-02-2023 stating as under:
"Q. 1,2,3,6,7,12,18,19,20,21,23,24. In reference to these points you are first requested to visit the office of u/s on 03/03/2023 between 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Q. 4: yes Q.5. It was notified to higher authorities as and when required. 0.8: NO Q.9: The school record was handed over to Mrs. Poonam Shukla, TGT S.Science for smooth functioning of school Q.10: Current Seniority List as per provided by School Incharge is as under
Mrs. Anita Garg, TGT Maths Mrs. Rajesh Sinha, Drg, Teacher Mrs. Vedwati Meena, TGT Sk..
Mrs. Poonam Shukla, TGT S.sci Mrs. Vinita Tomar, TO T Sc.
Q.11. Ν.A. Q.13- Ν.A. Q14. 15, 16, The questions do not pertain to school. Q.17: Yes Q.22 Ν.A."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06-01-2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20-02-2023, held as under:-
"The appeal was heard and it was noticed that the PIO has not provided the reply within the time limit of 30 days as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 The Page 4 of 6 PIO is directed to provide the revised reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act. 2005 within 10 days of receive of this letter. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby disposed of with the above observations."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with her husband Shri Manoj Kumar Garg appeared in person Respondent: Dr. Raj Pal Singh, PIO, DDE (Zone-VI) appeared in person The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and misleading. She further submitted that she had visited the office of the respondent for inspection of records which was offered by the then PIO relating to the query raised in the RTI application. However, she stated that proper inspection was not given by the respondent.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise reply to the RTI application vide letter dated 10.02.2023. As regards to the appellant's claim regarding inspection of records, Dr. Raj Pal Singh, PIO, DDE (Zone-VI) stated that he was recently appointed as PIO for Zone-VI, therefore, he was not aware of the incidents as alleged by the appellant. However, he submitted that if the appellant agrees, he is ready for facilitating inspection of records relating to her queries of the RTI application to which the appellant agreed.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that point-wise reply has been given by the respondent vide letter dated 10.02.2023. It is noted that most of the information sought by the appellant was in the form of queries which does not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Although, the respondent had offered inspection of records on some points, but as per the appellant proper inspection was not allowed. The respondent during the hearing expressed their desire to facilitate Page 5 of 6 inspection of records relating to the query raised in the RTI application and as per the records available with them to which the appellant agreed.
In view of the above, the respondent is directed to facilitate inspection of the available records relating to the information sought in the RTI application on a mutually decided date and time and provide photocopies of the requisite documents as per the provisions of the RTI Act, upon payment of requisite fee. The information as enjoy exemptions under the RTI Act may not be allowed giving cogent reasons in the true spirit of the RTI Act. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of Deputy Director of Education, District North East II, E Block, Nand Nagrii, Delhi 110095 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)