Central Information Commission
Praveen Dagar vs Lok Nayak Hospital on 7 September, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No. CIC/LOKNH/A/2017/105548
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2017
Date of Decision : 01.09.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Praveen Dagar
Respondent : PIO
O/o Medical Superintendent
Lok Nayak Hospital
GNCTD
Through:- Dr. Kumud Bharati
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.10.2016
PIO replied on : 27.10.2016
First Appeal filed on : 30.10.2016
First Appellate Order on : 18.01.2017
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 25.01.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
The appellant sought information from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital regarding news published in Times of India on 31 July 2003. In this respect appellant sought following:-
1. Name of Doctors who have been found claiming travel allowance /Conveyance allowance by providing false information.
2. Inspection of file by which irregularity was detected & the money was recovered by these doctors.
3. Name of the officers with their rank who detected this irregularity.
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.10.2016 claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties were present and the appellant reiterated his plea and states that he had been a complainant with respect to the same issue of fake Page 1 of 3 conveyance allowance with respect to another Govt. hospital governed by the Delhi Government.
Respondent states there has been no such instance of any such case, as per the Vigilance Section. Records reveal that the AMS(Vig.) and AMS(A) have already submitted during hearing of the First Appeal that the matter does not pertain to them.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes that queries of the appellant as such may not be entertained. However, since the germane issue about which appellant seeks information is about the unfair practice of some doctors claiming travel/conveyance allowance on the basis of false information, the appellant agrees to refocus his query. Upon reframing the queries, the Commission directs Respondent to reply the following:
i) Has there been an enquiry against some doctors for claiming travel/conveyance allowance on the basis of false information provided by them since 2003;
ii) The number of doctors against whom there is information of involving in such malpractice;
iii) The numbers against whom disciplinary action was taken; and
iv) The punishment awarded to guilty doctors.
The above information in the form of Revised Reply should reach the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, with a copy marked mandatorily to the Commission to demonstrate compliance.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Page 2 of 3 Copy to:-
Page 3 of 3