Central Information Commission
Dr. Dharmendra Singh vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 17 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002701/5976
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002701
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Dharmendra Singh
Dr. Dharmendra Singh, PGT (Physics),
K .V. No. 2, Udhampur, (J&K).
Respondent : Mr. K. S. Yadav
Public Information Officer & Education Officer Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office - Govt. Hospital Road, Gandhinagar- Jammu - 180004.
RTI application filed on : 06-03-2009 PIO replied : 27-04-2009 First appeal filed on : 03-05-2009 First Appellate Authority order : 04-06-2009 Second Appeal received on : 23-10-2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 05/11/2009 Hearing Held on : 17-12-2009 Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought following information from PIO - K.V.S. Regional Office, Jammu regarding S. No. Information sought. The PIO's reply.
1. Copy of the order that any charge of The KV No. 2 Amritsar close down w.e.f.
Phys. Lab was handed over to Sh. Dal 01-04-2007. the custodian of the records Jeet Singh, Lab Attdt. in the yrs. 95-96, Principal KV No. 1 Amritsar intimated to 96-97, 97-98, 98-99 by the Hu then out this office that no order book regarding going PGI(Phy.) Ms. Taneet Kaur at handing over charge of Physics Lab to Shri K.V. No. 2, Amritsar. Daljeet Singh Lab Attendant by Ms Tanjeet Kaur PGT (Phy.) for the yrs 1995 to 1999 are available in the Vidyalaya records.
2. Copy of the charge taken over report by As above.
Sh. Daljeet Sing lab Attdt. the out going PGI(Phy.) Ms. Tarjeet Kaur in the yrs.
since 1994 to 1999.
3. Copy of order issued by Principal for As reported by the Principal, KV 1 Amritsar handing over the charge of Phys Lab No such records are available. equipment by Sh. Daljeet sing, Lab Attdt. to Mrs. Aneeta Parmar TGT(Bio) of K.V. No. 2 Amritsar in the yrs. 1995 to 1999 and copy of the charge taken over report by Mrs. Aneeta Parmar, Page no. 1 of TGT (Bio) in the yrs of from 1995 to 1999.
4. Copy of the stock register Phy. Lab Copy of stock Register had been provided to equipment as mentioned in the yrs. the appellant. 1995-96, 96-97, 97-98.
5. Copy of the signatures as obtained from Dr. Dharmendra Singh PGT (Phy) had DDE Dharmendra Singh PGI(Phy.) at refused to received the letter mentioned in the time alleged service of letter no. 2- Para 5 of his information under RTI Act, 2/c/19 Gen dt. 28-10-97, 2-2/c/20 Gen 2005 as per record available in his personal dt. 28-10-1997, 2-2/c/97/Gen dt. 31-01- file. As such the question of copy fo 97, 2-2/c/62/Gen dt. 18-03-97, 2- signatures obtained from Dr. Dharmendra 2/c/64/Gen dt. 18-03-97, 2-2/c/125/Gen Singh PGT (Phy.) does not arise. 126, 127, 128 dt. 02-11-98, 2- 2/c/71/Gen dt.31-01-97.
6. Copy of the proof as exist with the A copy of letter dt. 25-11-93 given by the school authorities that Dr. Dharmendra appellant to the Principal KV No. 2 Amritsar Singh, PGT (Phy) one living wife. Copy as declaration of marital status had been of the authority proof actual and provided to the appellant. ............. i.e. entry of his official record exist and the person actually present in the school. The wife actually and really presented her self before school .......
7. Copy of the letter of verification The Principal KV No. 1 Amritsar (custodian submitted to Suptt. Of Police as alleged of record) intimated that letter of verification in letter No. PF (D.Singh)/92-93/kvk- submitted to the Suptd. Of Police Aligarh 2/939-940 dt 26-11-90 r.e. provide latter does not exit in the service documents. of verification as issued by kvs However a copy of SSP, Aligarh had been authorities to Supdt. Of Police, Aligarh. provided to the appellant (1 page). Provide the copy of dispatch register and also provide the copy of diary of the letter from 26-10-92 to the date on which verification report is entered in diary.
Provide the documents and in case is not available or the entries does not exist then specify actually the position as it is.
Ground of the First Appeal:
Incorrect and incomplete information had been provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
"Whereas, considering the information provided by the PIO unsatisfactory, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 03-05-2009 to the undersigned being the 1st Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which was received in this office on 15-05-2009 in the said appeal the appellant submitted that the PIO has not provided the requisite information correctly and what actually are available in the records.
Whereas, the appeal dated 03-05-2009 submitted by the appellant and reply dated 24-04- 2009 of the PIO to the appellant have been examined by the undersigned and found that information and documents have been supplied by the PIO to the appellant. As received from the Page no. 2 of respective Principals. In case copy of reply of Principal are required, the same can be obtained from the PIO by paying requisite documents fee.
Whereas, the desired information / documents thus has already been supplied to the appellant by the PIO, the allegations made by the appellant in his aforesaid appeal dated 03-05- 2009 against the PIO are neither justified nor acceptable.
Now, therefore, in view of the above the said appeal dated 03-05-2009 preferred by the said Shri Dr. Dharmandra Singh stands disposed off".
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incorrect information had been provided by the PIO. Dissatisfied order had been passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Dr. Dharmendra Singh;
Respondent : Mr. K. S. Yadav, Public Information Officer & Education Officer;
The PIO has given the information but he is now directed to give the following additional information:
1- Query-5: There is no material evidence of Mr Dharmendra Singh's refusal to take the letters. The PIO's information has been provided based on the letter by Mr. B.K.Ohri, Principal.
Most of the information has been given by the PIO based on the information available. The Appellant is seeking information about the period 1995 to 1998 and the said school at Amritsar had been closed down and the records have been transferred. Some of the records are not available as admitted by the PIO. The Appellant insists that whatever records have been given are forged and fake. It is beyond this Commission's capability to investigate this and if the appellant feels that the records are forged he shod file an appropriate complaint of forgery. Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The PIO will provide the statement as mentioned above to the Appellant on query-5 before 30 December 2009.
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 17 December 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (BK) Page no. 3 of