Central Information Commission
Dr Shambhu Roy vs Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya on 15 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000182/7148
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000182
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr Shambhu Roy,
Quarter no. 40, JNV Campus,
Rakh Jaganoo,
P.O. Jaganoo,
Udhampur,J&K- 182124
Respondent : Mr. Karam Chand,
PIO & Principal,
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Rakh Jaganoo district,
Udhampur, J&K -
RTI application filed on : 14/02/2009; 30/04/2009; 26/05/2009;
08/08/2009; 10/11/2009
PIO replied : 19/06/2009; 15/09/2009
First appeal filed on : 10/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal received on : 19/01/2010
Information soughtvide Application dated 14/02/2009:
1. Reason for non issue of appointment letter. When will it be issued?
2. When will its computerized copy be issued? Reason for issuing handwritten copies without attestation.
3. A copy of the original application submitted for selection and appointment.
4. A copy of all the documents moved in the selection proceedings.
5. Copy of the attendance register maintained upto date.
6. Reason for demanding heavy bribe for issuing appointment letter.
7. Reason for not allowing marking of sign in the attendance register in January.
8. Reason for giving only part payment every month under the garb of salary.
9. A copy of all time tables, duty sheet and chart allotted and assigned.
10. A copy of the order book kept.
11. Confirmation letter
12. Appreciation letter Information sought vide Application dated 30/04/2009:
Attested photocopies of all the documents submitted on 02/03/2009 on handing over charge of class teacher's post to Mr Hemant Kumar.
Information sought vide Application dated 26/05/2009:
INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY OF PIO
1. The stepwise procedures for the appointment of Mr Shambu Roy was engaged on contract basis Page 1 of 4 the applicant on 02/08/2 on 04/08/2008. Not appointed by the office.009
2. Reason for not allowing the applicant to mark Mr Shambu Roy had completed formalities on his presentation on the date of joining. 04/08/2008
3. Reasons for not issuing original copies of the As per official records, no demand for said appointment letter under official sign and stamp. copies had been made.
4. Copies of applicant's attendance marked in the register from 01/01/2009
5. Copies of time table and record of other duties Attached performed.
6. Copies of application for station leave File of the documents demanded stolen. Letter permission and other leaves as requested time and for lodging FIR has been issue. again.
7. Reason for non payment of salary for April Salary of Shambu Roy was paid in his saving 2009. bank account.
8.Reason for not allowing applicant to mark Mr Shambu Roy was actually absent on those present on some days of January inspite of days.
working evenly throughout the month including on Sundays.
9. Copy of the identity card register which Regularised word is never included in the mentions the terms regularised on 01/01/2008 in identity card. and against the column of applicant's name duly hand written by the respondent and officially stamped.
Information sought vide Application dated 08/08/2009 INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY OF PIO
1. Reason for non supplying of information asked Most of the information has been supplied vide for vide R.L. No. 4978 dated 28/05/09 letter no. SR/JNV/Udhm/2180.
Remaining information will be sent once the same is procured from the police( FIR lodged as the file was stolen)
2. Hidden motives for no supply of material facts. Record available in office was supplied. No hidden motives.
3. Compensation for loss Not applicable
4. When will information be supplied as asked in On receipt of information about the stolen file the letter no. 4978? from the police station Udhampur.
5. Reasons for not countersigning the documents Para not clear. Office unaware of statements issued as asked on 14/02/2009 and 30/04/2009. issued by applicant regarding 14/02/09 and Squabbles occurred. 30/04/09. No scenes occurred.
6. Photocopy of applicant's entry into the Statement reported by Bodh Raj Cowkidar and Vidyalaya for all those days that he had signed the Sanjay Kumar Chowkidar a/w copy of register register. that Shambu Roy habitually left the campus w/o information.
7.Reason why the employees got sign of the driver Family members brought the auto. Family of the vehicle containing applicant's luggage on members of Shambu Roy themselves loaded one register and that of his family members on luggage in it. All in the presence of Magistrate another. deputed by the Dty C'ner, Udhampur.
8. Photocopies of signs of applicant in the register Photocopies attached on 29/05/09 and 30/05/09 and onward.
Page 2 of 49. Photocopies of all records supplied from Allegations are without any evidence of and 30/07/2008 on 14/02/2009 and 30/04/2009 under proof. Defamation will be lodged. applications from the applicant. Allegations of forgery, tampering and fraudulent acts against the Principal.
10. Have the documents in question been stolen by Now it is a proven fact that the stolen file is the Principal from the appellant's official quarter lying with Shambu Roy and FIR has been no. 4? registered against him in PS Udhamour.
11. Actual scene of the incidents in acquiring the False and Defamatory deciding documents
12. Persons involved in the theft from the Fabricated and concocted story applicant's possession
13. Date of acquiring the base documents Not applicable
14. If not the above, then the next source to obtain Not applicable that
15. Actual scene of the incident when the No incident occurred. False and defamatory Applicant's I-card issued the second time on allegations. The I card is lying with Shambu 30/12/2008 was taken away, and the word Roy. It must be deposited in the Vidyalaya 'regularised' was deleted. Office.
16. Clarify the points made on Para 11 p. 6 in the I card is issued only to facilitate the identity of w/s the incumbent. The word 'regular' or 'regularised' is not written even on the cards of permanent employees. If such word occurs, it implies fraud and mischief on part of the card holder.
17. Way followed by the applicant in tampering The alleged card holder knows well the name
18. In what manner the applicant tampered with By inserting the word regularized in the i-card; the issued base documents overwriting the entry of photo i-card; attaching copies of self prepared terms and conditions of service
19. Hidden motives for issuing I card the second No hidden motives time
20. Whose card did the applicant use in the matter Applicant to send both the cards in original.
in question? Then any comment can be made.
21. Points of the PIO on the matter of the facts of The Applicant was contract teacher. He got the case contract salary. When ousted, he hatched a conspiracy to mislead the law, public authority and others. There are false statements and vague questions.
22. Advice to the applicant on the matter of the Advices are given to employees on roll, not to case ex-contract employees
23. Capacity under which letter no. F. In the capacity of head of institution to exercise student/JNVRJ/2009/2324-36 dated 25/06/09 and control on the inmates and to inform the parents letter no. F. student/ JNVRJ/2009/2420-37 dated about the activities of their wards. Such 7/7/09 were sent. questions do not come under the RTI.
24. Material facts in sending the above letters Language is vague. Kindly mention clearly.
25. End points in doing so above Official and moral duties to keep parents abreast with the activities of their wards
26. Amount spent by the PIO in course of Nil amount spent Page 3 of 4 managing the administrative systems for his own favour.
27. Conclusions and achievements in doing so To perform public duty
28. Legality in doing so In the capacity of public servant First Appeal:
Information by the PIO incomplete and not true.
Order of the FAA:
No Order Ground of the Second Appeal:
Ground for First Appeal and no order passed by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 15 March 2010: The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Shivnandan Kumar Roy on behalf of Dr Shambhu Roy; Respondent: Mr. Karam Chand, PIO & Principal;
The PIO has provided all the information available to the appellant. The Appellant is alleging that the records have been tempered with or forged. The PIO points out that the appellant's services have been terminated and it appears that the Appellant is making allegations without any proof or evidence. The Commission did not find any rational grounds for his allegation that the records has been forged and fabricated.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
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 15 March 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AS) Page 4 of 4