Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Monika Sharma vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 13 November, 2025

                                      के ीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NAVVS/A/2024/135025

 Monika Sharma                                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
 CPIO:
 Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,                                 ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Chandigarh

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 29.05.2024                FA      : 03.07.2024            SA     : 23.10.2024

 CPIO : 28.06.2024               FAO : 02.08.2024                Hearing : 16.10.2025


Date of Decision:13.11.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) An attested copy of the Inquiry Report, which was sent to the Principal, JNV Mohali along with letter no. 4-22(MOHALI) NVS/RO/CHANDIGARH/SA/9342-

43 dated 03.01.2024 by NVS RO Chandigarh (as it was mentioned in the said letter of that copy of inquiry report enclosed) for issuing Recorded Warning to the undersigned. Needless to mention that I demanded this Inquiry Report from the Principal, JNV Mohali vide my application/letter dated 09.03.2024 to submit a suitable representation to the Competent Authority for withdrawal of Recorded Page 1 of 4 Warning but it was informed that the said report was not enclosed with the letter though it was mentioned therein and the same has not been provided to me till date. Hence, it is being demanded under RTI act-2005.

2) Please provide me the attested of all copies of the note sheets of NVS, Regional office, Chandigarh (File no 4-22(MOHALI)NVS/RO/CHANDIGARH/SA) on which the whole case/ above referred Inquiry Report was dealt and finally decided by the Competent Authority to issue a Recorded Warning to me (File no 22(MOHALI)NVS/RO/CHANDIGARH/SA) as mentioned on the letter. 4-

3) Attested copies of all the note sheets on which my Representation dated 28.03.2024 was dealt in the NVS Regional Office, Chandigarh (File no 4- 22(MOHALI)NVS/RO/CHANDIGARH/SA) and turned down straightway by the Competent Authority without mentioning any reason (File по 4- 22(MOHALI)NVS/RO/CHANDIGARH/SA) as mentioned on the letter.

4) Please provide me the attested copy of forwarding letter of NVS, RO, Chandigarh vide which my Appeal dated 16.04.2024 addressed to Hon'ble Commissioner has been forwarded by the NVS, RO, Chandigarh to NVS, H.Qrs

5) Attested copies of all the note sheets on which my Appeal dated 16.04.2024 was dealt in the NVS Regional Office, Chandigarh I am enclosing a postal order no. 61F 724237 & 61F 724238 dated 30.04.2024 amounting to Rs.20/- in favour of Deputy Commissioner, NVS, RO, Chandigarh.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1: Requisite letter is attached as Annexure A. Inquiry report contains third party information of other staff member, hence cannot be provided.

2: Requisite information attached as Annexure B. Page 2 of 4 3-5: There is no provision of Appeal against the recorded warning, hence the appeal was not forwarded to NVS Hqrs.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 02.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.10.2024.

5. The appellant appeared through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Santh Singh, Assistant Commissioner, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that she sought copy of note sheets and alleged that her appeal was not forwarded to the higher authorities.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the enquiry committee submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner and the children who gave depositions in the enquiry are still in the campus.

Upon the Commission's query on how the appellant is related to the case, the respondent submitted that a student had died and warning was issued to the appellant and the sought enquiry report has lot of third-party information in it. The respondent further submitted that there is no provision of appeal against the recorded warning and hence the appellant's appeal was not forwarded to the higher authorities.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant vide reply dated 28.06.2024. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 13.11.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional Office, Bay No. 26-27, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh - 160030

2. Monika Sharma Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)