Central Information Commission
Arun Bhardwaj vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 28 November, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DTCOR/A/2022/118945 -UM
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
THE PIO/Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
O/o The Regional Manager (SOUTH),
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
VASANT VIHAR DEPOT, NEW DELHI- 110022
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2022
Date of Decision : 28.11.2022
Date of RTI application 27.04.2021
CPIO's response 28.05.2021
Date of the First Appeal 27.06.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 28.12.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 4ETC.Page 2 of 4
The CPIO vide letter dated28.05.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 28.12.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant, as under:-
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant:Present in Person Respondent: Mr Ravi Kasana DM Kalkaji, Mr Hem Chand , Mr Om Prakash,Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that false information has been furnished to him. He deposed that he had served in Airforce as a driver for a period of 20 years, after taking retirement he joined DTC as a driver. He alleged that he was malafidely marked as long absent despite of giving proper replies. Due to which his increment was not duly provided for a period of 3 years and he had suffered a loss of approx. 20-25 lacs. Therefore in order to get justice he had filed the current RTI Application. The Respondent stated that earlier they had sought a clarification from the Appellant on point no 1 of the RTI Application but later on the direction of the FAA they had furnished complete information to the Appellant. The Appellant claimed that information provided is incorrect.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to re-examine the matter and furnish a correct and suitable revised reply to the Appellant, redacting the personal details of the third parties, strictly in accordance Page 3 of 4 with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
Further the Commission observes that there is weight in the submission of the appellant that he has been wrongly punished and therefore advises the Managing Director, DTC, to look into the grievance of the Appellant from the point of view of the law of natural justice in a span of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.' The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 28.11.2022 Page 4 of 4