Central Information Commission
Dr Jaseela Majeed vs Department Of Training And Technical ... on 3 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351
Dr Jaseela Majeed .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Training and
Technical Education, Muni Maya
Ram Marg, PitamPura, Delhi - 110034 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.11.2025
Date of Decision : 02.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 09.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 05.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information under RTI Act 2005 to provide the documents related to furnish details regarding order (F. No:10/1264/VC Branch/DPSRU/2020/16842-16853 dated 29.12.2023) from Registrar, Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University, wherein CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351 Page 1 of 8 compliance of the approval by Secretary (TTE) to directions of the Hon'ble LG to relieve from the charge of position/ work assigned effect from 29.12.2023.
Kindly provide the following under Right to Information Act 2005:
1) Certified copies of directions issued by the Hon'ble LG for disciplinary action against mentioned faculty in the order with reference to F.No:
10/1264/VC Branch/DPSRU/2020/16842-16853 dated 29.12.2023 from Registrar, Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University, Govt of NCT of Delhi.
2) Certified copies of the approval issued by the Secretary (TTE) in compliance to the directions of Hon'ble LG for disciplinary action against mentioned faculty in the order with reference to F.No: 10/1264/VC Branch/DPSRU/2020/16842-16853 dated 29.12.2023, from Registrar, Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University,
3) The certified copy of note sheets/statements/reports mentioning the details of 17 faculty explaining the circumstances under which such disciplinary proceedings are undergone."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.02.2024 stating as under:
"1 The matter of RTI application is under process. Hence, requisite information cannot be provided as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
In a similar matter, Full Bench of the CIC, in its order dated 28.11.2014 in File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001020-AK Aggarwal V/s SEBI and RIL. had also held as under:
"This Commission in its decision dated 10.07.2007 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11 (Shankar Sharma & Others Vs. DGIT) observed that the term 'investigation' used in Section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally and that no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken. This commission in CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234- K.S. Prasad Vs SEBI, observed that "..as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Page 3 of 3 officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be end of investigation... which can be truly said to be concluded only CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351 Page 2 of 8 with the decision by the competent authority." This Commission in CIC/DS/A/2013/000138/MP Narender Bansal VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., had held that the investigation in the matter was complete but further action was under process, and hence, it attracted section 8(1)(h) of the Act."
2 -do-
3 -do-"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 18.03.2024, held as under:
"During the hearing, it was informed that the DTTE, vide letter dated 27.12.2023, had conveyed the directions of the Chancellor, DPSRU to the Vice-Chancellor, DPSRU, with the approval of Secretary (TTE) that all 17 faculties, against whom action has been recommended in the inquiry report, shall be removed from the administrative as well as sensitive posts and allowed to teach only till the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings against them. Subsequently, DTTE has also conveyed the directions of the Chancellor, DPSRU, to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the said 17 faculties, as per provisions of DPSRU, Act, 2008, which is still pending on the part of DPSRU. Although the directions of the Chancellor, DPSRU have been conveyed to the Vice- Chancellor, DPSRU, however, final action is still pending on the same, hence, it attracted Section 8(I)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In a similar matter, Full Bench of the CIC, vide its order dated 28.11.2014, in file no.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020-A.K. Agarwal V/s SEBI and RIL had also upheld the identical decision.
The grounds of appeal that the directions given by the Hon'ble L.G. and subsequent approval of the Secy. (TTE), as quoted in the order dated 29.12.23 of the DPSRU, are not part of the Inquiry/Investigation, cannot be accepted as the matter has still not attained the finality, as such, any related information is exempt from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351 Page 3 of 8
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Section Officer & deemed PIO present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.05.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"The point wise reply of the requisite information was provided to her vide this office letter dated 08.02.2024. However, the applicant was not satisfied with the reply and filed First appeal on 05.03.2024. After granting her the personal hearing by the FAA on 15.03.2024, the FAA. vide order dated 19.03.2024, had disposed off the appeal mentioning that the requisite information is related to the ongoing investigation on the directions of the Hon'ble LG, Delhi, which is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. But the applicant was not satisfied with the reply and filed Second Appeal before the Hon'ble CIC In this connection, it is respectfully informed that this department had been receiving various complaints since 2020 alleging that Delhi Pharmaceutical Science & Research University (hereinafter called as DPSRU) has made recruitments of various Faculties in contravention with the existing Recruitment Rules and other guidelines issued by the UGC & PCI. After making repeated requests, the University provided the relevant records in 2022 (after 02 years). During Preliminary inquiry conducted by the Department, various major irregularities were observed in the recruitment of various faculties including Dr. Jaseela Majeed.
Subsequently, the said observations were placed before the Hon'ble LG, Delhi, being the Chancellor of DPSRU. The Hon'ble LG, Delhi, vide Order dated 28.06.2023, ordered a detailed inquiry by constituting a Committee of Senior IAS Officers. The Inquiry Committee submitted the detailed report on 13.10.2023 by mentioning the serious irregularities. Considering the said report, the Hon'ble LG, Delhi passed the order of removal of Dr. R.K.Goyal, the then Vice- Chancellor and also directed to initiate disciplinary action as per rules against 17 illegally selected faculties immediately.
CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351 Page 4 of 8It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant, in his RTI application, has referred a letter dated 29.12.2023 issued by the Registrar, DPDRU (Annexure-A), which was issued by the Registrar in compliance of the letter dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure-B) issued by this Department, on the directions of the Hon'ble LG, Delhi. As per letter dated 27.12.2023, the directions of the Hon'ble LG, Delhi were conveyed to the University that all officers including the faculties against whom action was recommended in the inquiry report shall be removed from administrative as well as sensitive posts and be allowed to teach only till the finalization of disciplinary proceedings against them. Subsequently, considering the serious irregularities in the recruitment process held in year 2017 and 2019 in DPSRU, the Hon'ble LG, Delhi directed to initiate suitable disciplinary action for removal/dismissal of all illegally recruited faculties (including the applicant), whose names were mentioned in the inquiry report dated 13.10.2023, after following the due procedure as per DPSRU Act and Statues. Thereafter, DPSRU has removed one of the faculty i.e. Dr. Shilpa Jain (out of those 17 faculties), but the final action against rest of the 16 faculties (Including the applicant) is still pending on the part of the University despite a considerable lapse of 18 months. As such, the matter was under Investigation on the date of RTI application (15.01.2024) and the same is still under investigation with the University.
In view of above, since the matter was under investigation and the disclosure of the requested information at that stage could have definitely impede the said investigation process and defeat the purpose of the protection granted to such information under RTI Act. As such, the requested information could not be provided to the applicant as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Sir, with due regard, it is also informed that In a similar matter, Full Bench of the CIC, in its order dated 28/11/2014 in File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020-AK Agrawal V/s SEBI and RIL had also held as under-
This Commission in its decision dated 10.7.2007 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11 (Shankar Sharma & Others Vs. DGIT) observed that the term investigation" used in section 8(1)(h) of the Act CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351 Page 5 of 8 should be interpreted broadly and liberally and that no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken. This Commission in CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 K.S.Prasad vs SEBI, observed that...as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Page 3 of 3 Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation.... which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority." This Commission in CIC/DS/A/2013/000138/MP-Narender Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that the investigation in the matter was complete but further action was under process, and hence, it attracted section 8(1)(h) of the Act."
Furthermore, in the same matter, the applicant had also filed a second appeal before your good honour vide Appeal No. CICV/DOTTE/A/2023/551515 and after detalled examination of the facts, circumstances and the record provided by the department, said appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-C)."
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant that the information sought by her is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
8. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent informed that the disciplinary proceedings are still under process and final decision in the matter has not been taken yet. The Respondent further submitted that similar matter of the Appellant has already been heard and adjudicated by the Commission vide order dated 07.03.2025.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the CPIO on her RTI application.
CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351 Page 6 of 810. Considering the nature of documents sought for by the Appellant in her RTI application, the Commission is of the view that the information sought was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as these are predominantly substantial records and also the disclosure of which would impede the proceedings.
11. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
12. The Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate her claims further.
13. The Respondent is directed to share a copy of their written submissions with the Appellant, through speed-post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
14. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110034 CIC/DOTTE/A/2024/618351 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)