Central Information Commission
Usha Kapoor vs Cantt Board, Delhi on 19 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001279
Usha Kapoor Vs Cantt Board, Delhi
Dated 19.3.2010
The Commission had heard the above cited matter on
30.12.2009. The proceedings of the day are extracted below :-
"Appellant : Smt. Usha Kapoor
Public Authority : Cantonment Board, Delhi
(through Advocate R. Nanawati and Ms Nirdesh
Kumari, Asstt. Office Supdt)
Date of Hearing : 30.12.2009
Date of Decision : 30.12.2009
FACTS :
The matter, in short, is that the appellant was working as a Teacher in a school run by Delhi Cantonment Board. She retired from service in 2000. It is her grievance that she has not been granted ACP by the Cantonment Board. It is in this connection that vide her RTI application dated 12.6.2009, she had sought the copies of :-
"(i) My case sent to L.A.O; (ii) His querie;
(iii) His requirement of sanction of GOC-in-Chief W.C. etc. as mentioned in your No. DCB/26/M/RTI/2005/8 dated 3rd June 2009 in response to my letter dated 8th May, 2009 addressed to FAA;
(iv) Further correspondence done in my case from 23rd December, 2008 to 11th June, 2009.
(v) Sanction of G.O.C-in-Chief W.C. granting 2nd Up- gradation to other employees of DCB.
2. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 8.7.2009 asking for payment of requisite fee for supply of information. The appellant had made requisite payment to on 9.7.2009. Thereupon the requisite documents were supplied to the appellant on 6.8.2009. In the meanwhile , the appelalnt had filed first appeal on 4.8.2009 which was decided by the FAA on 21.8.2009.
3. In the present appeal, the appellant has pleaded that he had deposited the requisite fee on 9.7.2009 but the documents were supplied to her on 6.8.2009 i.e. after a delay of about 26 days.
4. The matter is called for hearing today dated 30.12.2009. Appellant is present alongwith Shri A.M. Prasad and Ms. Bhumika Nanda. The Public Authority is represented by the officers named above. The principal submission of Shri Prasad is that the appellant had filed the RTI application on 12.6.2009 but the information was provided on 6.8.2009, that is, after 53 days, as against the legal mandate of 30 days, reckoning from the date of filing of RTI application. This according to him is not in line with the mandate of section 7 (1) of RTI Act. According to him, the documents should have been supplied latest by 13.7.2009. However, as the documents were supplied on 6.8.2009, there was unexplainable delay of about 23 days.
5. Advocate Nanavati would submit that he will have to take briefing from the concerned officers regarding delay, as alleged, in the supply of information. However, as regards the question of grant of ACP to the appellant, he would submit that a recommendation has been sent to the Principal Director(DE), MoD, Western Command, Chandigarh, for grant of ACP to all similarly placed Teachers as the appellant vide letter dated 17.7.2009. A reminder was also sent vide letter dated 22.10.2009. Shri Nanavati assures that Cantt Board will further take up the matter with the concerned authorities for expeditious decision in the matter.
INTERIM DECISION
6. In view of the above, the case is adjourned to 29.1.2010 at 1130 hrs. It is directed that the Cantonment Board will be represented by a senior officer on this date to explain the delay in the supply of information to the appellant and, more importantly, to apprise the Commission of the follow up action being taken with the concerned authorities for grant of ACP to the appellant."
2. The further proceedings held on 29.1.2010 are extracted below :-
"This is in continuation of this Commission's proceedings dated 30.12.2009. As scheduled, the matter is called for hearing today dated 29.1.2010. The Cantt Board is represented by Shri V.K. Sethi, AE & Ms Valsa Mathew, OS. It is the submission of Shri Sethi that the Board had taken up the matter with Western Command and received letter dated 14.1.2010 from the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Western Command directing them to forward the following certificates :-
"(i) Affected employees fulfill all the conditions as laid down in DOP&T letter dated 9.8.1999.
(ii) No disciplinary action is pending against concerned employees.
(iii) There is no break in service of concerned employees."
It is his say that Cantt Board is pursuing the matter with the Western Command.
2. On the other hand, it is the submission of Shri A.N. Prasad (appearing for the appellant) that the matter has been hanging fire since last 10 years and no decision has been taken regarding grant of ACP to the appellant and other similarly placed teachers. It is also his say that the lakadasical and casual attitude adopted by the competent authority apart form the causing financial detriment, has also caused mental agony and torture to the appellant and her family members. The fact that the issue of grant of ACP has pended for almost a decade does not speak well of the decision making process. The response of Principal Director, DE to the proposals sent by the Cannt Board after 06 months also does not reflect well on his office.
3. Be that as it may, the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantt Board is hereby directed to respond to the letter of the Principal Director, Defence Estates, in right earnest. The Commission expects that an appropriate decision will be taken on the core issue of grant of ACP to the appellant in 08 weeks time. The matter is adjourned to 19.3.2010 at 1050 hrs.
4. Shri A. Shekhar Babu, CEO, Cantt Board, Delhi, is directed to file an affidavit before the Commission in this regard two days before the date of hearing with a copy thereof to the appellant and also to appear before the Commission on this date.
5. A copy of this order may also be sent to the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Western Command, to have the matter decided before the date of hearing."
3. As scheduled the matter is called for hearing today dated 19.3.2009. The appellant is present along with Shri A.N. Prasad and Shri S.K. Kapoor. As directed, Shri A. Shekhar Babu, CEO, Cantt Board, Delhi is present. As directed, he has filed an affidavit dated 16.3.2010 before the Commission, para 02 whereof is reproduced below :-
"2. That the present status/information in respect of implementation of ACP scheme to the teaching staff of the Delhi Cantonment Board is as under :-
(a) In reference to letter of Principal Director, Defence Estate dated 14 Jan 2010 for initiating fresh proposal covering all issues in respect of implementation of ACP scheme to the teaching staff of Delhi Cantonment Board, the office of the Delhi Cantonment Board sent letter dated 25th Feb 2010 to the Principal Director, Defence Estate, Western Command for the sanction to implement the ACP scheme to the affected teachers of the Delhi Cantonment Board.
(b) Delhi Cantonment Board has received Fax communication dated 12th Mar 2010 from the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, Dte of Defence Estates, Western Command, in response to the letter dated 25th Feb 2010 sent by the Delhi Cantonment Board to the Principal Director, Defence Estate, Western Command. Vide this said letter, the sanction of the Competent Authority in respect of grant of benefit of ACP scheme to the affected teachers of the Delhi Cantonment Board subject to audit check has been communicated to the office of the Delhi Cantonment Board.
(c) Sanction has also been accorded by the Competent Authority under Rule 19B of the Cantonment account code, 194 to the incurring of extra expenditure involved on grant of ACP scheme."
4. A bare reading of the affidavit would indicate that the competent authority has sanctioned grant of benefit of ACP scheme to the affected teachers, including the appellant, subject to audit check as per standard procedure. As the matter has been pending for almost a decade the Commission queried Shri Shekhar Babu as to how much time was likely to be taken by him for consequential action, that is, actual grant of ACP benefit to the appellant. He would respond that the Audit Department is a separate department and does not function under him and, therefore, he can not give a time frame for the implementation of the order of the competent authority. The matter, however, does not end here. Along with his affidavit, he has also filed an application dated 16.3.2010 in which he has raised questions about the jurisdiction and powers of the Commission. Paras 04 & 05 of his application are extracted below :-
"4. That the said direction is beyond the Jurisdication and powers of the Hon'ble CIC while acting as second Appellate Authority, as laid down under the Right to Information Act.
5. That since the said direction is beyond the Jurisdiction and power of the Hon'ble CIC, as such the same is requested to be recalled from the order dated 29th Jan, 2010."
5. It may be recalled that the appellant retired from service about 10 years back. She has been knocking at every door for the grant of ACP but to no avail. Several other teachers who retired from the service of Cantonment Board, Delhi, also share her unenviable fate. Needless to say, if the ACP benefit was due to her, it should have been granted well in time and she should not have been made to wait for a decade, as has happened in the present. Case. This is an elementary administrative principle which no public authority, if inibued with a sense of responsibility and good conscience, would like to ignore. Be that as it may, we are happy to note that at long last the competent authority has sanctioned the grant of ACP to the appellant and similarly placed other employees of the Cantonment Board. We are, however, told that the Audit Department, which is now required to scrutinize/approve the order of the competent authority, does not fall under the domain of the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board. This may well be so. The Commission would have expected the Chief Executive Officer to display helpful attitude by way of having the matter processed by the Audit Department expeditiously, given the fact that the matter has already pended for a decade. However, contrary to our expectations, Shri Shekhar Babu through his tone, tenor and body language, exhibited rather a belligerent attitude which is not appreciated. His application questioning the powers and jurisdiction of the Commission also appears to be misconceived and misdirected in the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as the Commission is simply interested in the grant of benefit of ACP to the appellant if due. Needless to say, this situation has arisen due to lackadaisical approach and unhelpful attitude of the Cantt Board. The affirmation by Shri Shekhar Babu in his affidavit that the grant of benefit of ACP is due to the appellant proves this point.
6. In view of the above, we direct the President of the Delhi Cantt Board to use his good offices to have this matter settled and send a compliance report to the Commission.
7. The matter is adjourned to 26.5.2010 at 1030 hrs. The President, Cantt Board will appear before the Commission personally or through his authorized representative on the date of hearing.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The President Delhi Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantonment-110010
2. Shri A. Sekhar Babu Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantonment-110010
3. Smt Usha Kapoor WZ-262, St No 9, Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi-110046