Central Information Commission
Mr.Ram Pal Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002038/9248
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002038
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ram Pal Sharma
R/o 1/5413, Gali No. 15,
Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara
Delhi - 110032.
Respondent : Mr. Kanwar Singh
PIO & Dy. Director of Education Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of Deputy Education Officer Shahdara, North Zone, Keshav Chowk, Opposite Welcome Metro Station, Delhi- 110032 RTI application filed on : 16/03/2010 PIO replied : 04/05/2010 First appeal filed on : 22/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 15/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 16/07/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Details and names of teachers from all schools in 62 teachers were promoted and posted in the the Shahdara, North Zone who have been mentioned zone. The list up till 30/06/2010 promoted to the post of Principal by the including the name of the school and date of joining Education Department from 09/05/2007 to is enclosed with the reply. 02/03/2009.
2. Photocopy of the details of the rules/provisions The pay fixations were made under FR22 (i) a (ii).
by way of which the salary of the above (certified copy enclosed) mentioned principals have been fixed. Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant within a period of a week.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Sharma representing Mr. Ram Pal Sharma; Respondent: Mr. Kanwar Singh, PIO & Dy. Director of Education;
Most of the information has been supplied to the appellant after the order of the FAA. However, the complete fixation rules have not been given. The respondent admits that the second part of the rules has not been provided to the appellant. The respondent states that the person responsible for not supplying the Page 1 of 2 complete rules was Mrs. Kanta Kumar presently Additional Director-I, Education Department, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
The PIO Mr. Kanwar Singh is directed to provide the second part of the rules to the appellant.
The RTI application has been submitted on 16/03/2010 and the information should have been provided before 16/04/2010. Instead the information has been provided on 04/05/2010. The respondent states that the person responsible for giving this information late was Mrs. Sushila, School Inspector. The PIO states that the RTI application had been forwarded to her under Section 5(4) on 20/03/2010 and she sent the information on 30/04/2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. Kanwar Singh is directed to provide the second part of the rules to the appellant before 20 September 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mrs. Kanta Kumar.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete information. Deemed PIO Mrs. Kanta Kumar will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 21 October 2010 at 11.00am alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1).
Deemed Mrs. Sushila, School Inspector is responsible of not supplying the information within 30 days as required by the law. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her.
Deemed Mrs. Sushila, School Inspector will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 21 October 2010 at 11.00am alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1). She 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 07 September 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) CC:
To, 1- Deemed Mrs. Sushila, School Inspector through Mr. Kanwar Singh; 2- Mrs. Kanta Kumar, Additional Director-I, Education Department, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.Page 2 of 2