Central Information Commission
Dr R Kalpana vs Ut Of Puducherry on 4 October, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2023/635098
Dr. R Kalpana .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Assistant Registrar Estt,
Puducherry Technological
University, Pillaichavady,
Puducherry - 605014 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.09.2024
Date of Decision : 03.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.02.2023
PIO replied on : 02.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 26.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.07.2023
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"1 Please provide the copy of the attendance register of the department of ECE of where Prof. G. Sivaradje's name is listed. 2 Please provide the copy of the attendance register of PTU administrative office where Prof. G. Sivaradje's name is listed.
3 Please provide the copy of the attendance register, of the any department or section of PTU where Prof. G. Sivaradje's name is listed and signed by him."
The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.05.2023 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application cited above, it is to inform that the Information/records sought are not available in this institution and the same will be collected from concerned sections/department and provided in due course"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2023. The FAA's order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Ms. J. Kalia Selvy, PIO, appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that she was the secretary of the Teaching Association and Prof. G. Sivaradje was holding the post of Registrar in the Puducherry Technological University. Earlie he was posted in ECE department. The Association was challenging the posting/appointment of present incumbent Registrar because many people had applied for the post and in the general meeting of the Association it was concluded that the appointment of Page 2 of 4 present incumbent Registrar may be challenged legally. Therefore, she sought aforesaid information. She stated that none of the departments were maintaining the attendance records of Prof. G. Sivaradje.
The appellant stated that the PIO works under the Registrar who was the subject matter of the RTI application. Therefore, PIO did not take independent view while replying the RTI application. Moreover, Prof. G. Sivaradje, was the First Appellate Authority, therefore, he neither passed any order in this case nor recused himself show that some other authority could have passed the order.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia reiterated the PIO's reply dated 02.05.2023.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive.
The appellant submitted that the PIO works under the Registrar who was the subject matter of the RTI application. Therefore, PIO did not take independent view while replying the RTI application. Moreover, Prof. G. Sivaradje, was the First Appellate Authority, therefore, he neither passed any order in this case nor recused himself show that some other authority could have passed the order there apparently being a conflict of interest.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remanded back to the FAA with the directions to dispose of the appeal afresh in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The Head of the Department is directed to ensure that this matter should be heard by an officer of the same rank as of FAA other than Prof. G. Sivaradje who has conflict of interest. The PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before the competent authority for its compliance. The direction of the Commission be complied with by the Page 3 of 4 competent authority within a period of six weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Registrar, Puducherry Technological University, Pillaichavady, Puducherry -605014 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)