Central Information Commission
Dr. Shubham Jhanwar vs Aiims, Rishikesh on 26 September, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/AIMRS/A/2022/654044
Dr. Shubham Jhanwar .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Senior Administrative Officer & CPIO,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Virbhadra Road, Rishikesh, District-Dehradun-249201
(Uttarakhand).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.07.2022
CPIO replied on : 25.11.2022
First appeal filed on : 20.08.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 15.12.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 10.10.2022
Date of Hearing : 26.09.2023
Date of Decision : 26.09.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Please provide the below mentioned information regarding the following MD Psychiatry Resident Doctors - Dr Akash, Dr Bhavika, Dr Divya and me (Dr Shubham)
1. Number of days of clinical posting in ward/OPD/laboratory of Psychiatry.
2. Number of days of clinical posting in ward/OPD/laboratory of departments other than psychiatry.
3. Number of days of posting for COVID Duties.
• Dissatisfied with the no response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 20.08.2022.
• PIO has furnished reply vide letter dated 25.11.2022 as under :
"..sought information has already been sent to you in earlier RTI.."
• FAA vide order dated 15.12.2022 held as under :
A personal hearing was given to appellant. He neither attended the same nor have conveyed his inability to attend.
The personal hearing was attended by above respondents. CPIO Sh Harish Thapliyal mentioned that this application was received along with six other RTIS filed by the applicant on 21.07.2022. Four(#AMSRK/R/E/22/00202,#AMSRK/R/E/22/00204,#AMSRK/R/ E/22/00207 and #AMSRK/R/E/22/00209 of these applications submitted by the applicant were forwarded to HoD Psychiatry on 23.07.2022. In which reply was received only in respect of RTI AMSRK/R/E/22/00202 (for three points) on 26.07.2022. Further, these RTIs #AMSRK/R/E/22/00204, #AMSRK/R/E/22/00207 and #AMSRK/R/E/22/00209 were re-sent to HoD Psychiatry for point wise reply and same was received. For RTI #AMSRK/R/E/22/00209 "Dr Shubham Jhanwar had clinical postings the entire time of his MD (Psychiatry) residency in ward/OPD of Psychiatry, except in the below mentioned situations of Q2 and Q3, Data pertaining to other resident doctors cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1) (3) of the RTI Act", Q2: Information to be furnished by faculty in charge of BG teaching.Page 2 of 5
Q3: Information pertains to the Office of Medical Superintendent/Dean of Hospital Affairs/COVID Roster Committee", After that this RTI was sent to Sub dean (a) for point 02 and Dr. Biswajeet Sahoo (DMS) for point 03. CPIO informed that all available information has been provided to Mr. Shubham Jhanwar. He further stated that Mr. Shubham Jhanwar has filed more than 35 applications under RTI Act within short period of time. Many information sought under these applications are repeated nature. He further stated that information sought under this RTI are same as that of RTI application #AMSRM/R/E/22/00215 (for COVID. 18 duties) and the same was also replied: "The sought information is vast as communicated by Medical Superintendent Office. You can visit to inspect all pages on any working day by taking Psychiatry. exam pattern, Psychiatry curriculum, question papers, copy of marks, MD Psychiatry candidates duties etc. as filed by Mr. Shubham Jhanwar and his father. It shows that the appellant is not using the provisions of RTI in good faith But for using it as mean of harassment....Keeping in view the facts of the case and submissions made by respondent, no further intervention is required in the matter..."
• Written submission dated 'Nil' has been received from the CPIO and same is taken on record for perusal.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Mr. Harish M. Thapliyal, AIIMS Rishikesh The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him within stipulated time frame. He stated that his posting details/orders has not been furnished by the PIO till date.
The PIO stated that the Appellant has sought information relating to third which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. As regards the posting details/orders of the Appellant, the same is not available in complied form. He offered inspection of records to the Appellant.Page 3 of 5
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in not having provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application within the time frame stipulated under the RTI Act. Therefore, Commission directs then PIO through the present PIO to send his/her written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO.
Now, Commission based on the averment made by the parties during hearing, directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or his authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the concerned PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for the said inspection. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. However, no information shall be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.
PIO must make sure that only information pertaining to Appellant must be produced for inspection and no records pertaining to any third party must be produced.Page 4 of 5
The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Copy to be served through the PIO to:
Then PIO, Senior Administrative Officer & CPIO, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Virbhadra Road, Rishikesh, District-Dehradun-249201 (Uttarakhand).
--(For complying with the directions mentioned as above)--Page 5 of 5