Central Information Commission
Shiv Raj vs Dg, Doordarshan on 16 August, 2021
CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/651216
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/651216
In the matter of:
Shiv Raj ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Prasar Bharati, India' Public Service
Broadcaster, S-IV Section, Director
General: Doordarshan,
Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 04.01.2019
CPIO replied on : 09.04.2019
First Appeal filed on : 18.02.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 24.05.2019
Second Appeal Received on : 05.08.2019
Date of Hearing : 12.08.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Shiv Raj participated in the hearing upon being contacted on his
telephone.
Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Dy. Director participated in the hearing upon
being contacted on his telephone.
Page 1 of 7
CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/651216
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 04.01.2019 seeking information on the following three points:
"My application dated 31.12.2013 mentioning the grave misconduct ( practicing "Untouchability") of Shri Anurag Srivastava, Joint Secretary, min. of I. & B. sent by post to DARPG has been registered as Petition No. DARPG/P/2014/00299 dated 15.01.2014 and has been sent to Min. of I. and B., which has been closed on 15th July 2016 attaching an electronically forged unsigned fraudulent document, hiding the identity of the deciding authority and stating, "The subject matter of the petition/complaint does not come under the purview of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
You are requested to approach concerned Department / Ministry for the redressal of your Grievance."
Vide F.No. I-11011/918/2018-BA(E) dated 13.12.2018 received on 03 Jan 2019 duly signed by Sh. Sanjay Dhar, Under Secretary( BA-E), it is stated:
"In so far as BAE Section of M/o I. & B is concerned, it is informed that as per DARPG's guidelines, your grievance petition bearing registration No DARPG/P/2014/00299 dated 15.01.2014 was forwarded to DG: Doordarshan for taking necessary action and on basis of reply furnished by DG: Doordarshan, your said grievance petition was disposed of with the approval of Joint Secretary concerned of the Ministry."
Forwarding of my Petition No. DARPG/P/2014/00299 dated 15.01.2014 to DG:Doordarshan is contrary to law. In view of the above I may please be provided following information under The RTI Act-2005:
1) The attested copy of the proposal originated by DG: Doordarshan from 11.07.2016 to 15.07.2016 stating to implement an electronically forged unsigned fraudulent order mentioned in bold letters above.
2) The attested copy of the approval on this proposal duly signed by Sh. Mihir Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary ( DoPG), Min. of I. & B..
3) The attested copy of The Rule, an order by Govt. of India, an Act or an Article/ Clause from The Constitution of India vide which Deputy Director (Admn.) S-IV, DG: Doordarshan is competent enough to impose the Page 2 of 7 CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/651216 minimum penalty prescribed for practice of Untouchability to Shri Anurag Srivastava, Joint Secretary, Min. of I. & B. ( The minimum penalty for the said offence is 'To declare unfit for Public Service', A Major Penalty prescribed by Rule-11 (ix) of C.C.S.( C.C.A.) Rules-1965.)."
Shri Vijay Gupta, CPIO & Dy. Director Admn. (GRC) vide letter dated 09.04.2019, transferred RTI Application u/s 6(3) to CPIO, S-IV Section, DG: DD and endorsed a copy to the Appellant. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.05.2019, informed as under:
"The Appellant is at liberty either to converse with the said CPIO, Shri R. N. Jha, on his Tel. No. 011-23114133 or meet him in person as per the mutually decided/agreed date and time, if he feels so, to specify the exact information/document the Appellant wants vis-à-vis his RTI application dated 04.01.2019."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.
The Appellant stated that he has not received any information from the Respondent till date. He further stated that the information sought pertains to CPIO, M/o. Information and Broadcasting. He claimed that the instant RTI Application was dishonestly transferred to the CPIO, DG: Doordashan. He furthermore stated that the instant matter is criminal in nature and requested the Bench to look into the Page 3 of 7 CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/651216 same. Upon queried by the Commission to elaborate his statement, he provided a circuitous submission, which was imprecise.
The Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application was not received by them initially because the RTI Application and the First Appeal was filed before the M/o. Information and Broadcasting. He further submitted that as per the direction of the M/o. Information and Broadcasting, the First Appellate Authority of the answering Respondent had informed the Appellant to contact Shri R.N. Jha, CPIO on his telephone number or meet him in person to obtain the relevant information, which has not been availed by the Appellant till date.
Upon queried by the Commission as to whether the Appellant contacted the concerned official, he replied that he has received the aforesaid reply and averred that there is no use in contacting them because the answering Respondent is hiding the information wantonly and that the said act is criminal in nature. The Commission again asked the Appellant to explain what criminal act/deed has been committed by the Respondent, he stated that the information sought at point nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI Application should be available with the Respondent and that they are not providing it to him. At the instance of the Commission as to whether the Appellant is an employee of the Respondent, he replied that he was working as an Engineering Assistant and that he was illegally relieved from his duties on 07.09.2012. He further replied that he had sent several representations and that the same were wrongly closed on the pretext that the said representation does not come under the purview of M/o. Information and Broadcasting. He alleged that the said document is a fraudulent one, as per Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench intervened to clarify that the powers of the Commission are limited only to the information sought by the Appellant under the provisions of the RTI Page 4 of 7 CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/651216 Act only and not to bring in provisions of any other statutes, for the time being in force.
In response to the intervention of the Bench, the Appellant relentlessly argued on the background/merits of the case.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Anjani Kumar, CPIO and Dy. Director General (E) vide letter dated 04.08.2021, wherein he has reiterated the Commission the facts and circumstances of the instant case. A copy of the same has also been sent to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 11.08.2021, wherein he has countered the submissions of Shri Anjani Kumar, CPIO and Dy. Director General (E).
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has provided adequate opportunity to the Appellant to contact the concerned official and obtain the relevant information, which the Appellant has not utilized till date. It is surprising to note that the Appellant in an audacious manner avers before the Commission as to there is no use in contacting the Respondent in obtaining the relevant information. The Commission would not be wrong to construe that since the Appellant has been removed/relieved by the Respondent on 07.09.2012 for whatever reason, the Appellant is seeking certain documents pertaining to the said removal. However, the Appellant while communicating with the Respondent has resorted to disparaging phrases with an apparent intention to insult the Respondent public authority. There may be concerns that the Appellant desires to raise against Page 5 of 7 CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/651216 the Respondent public authority, but the RTI Act certainly does not provide for vilifying public authorities in such manner by means of filing an RTI Application. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Commission finds it expedient to direct the present CPIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect the relevant records as sought in the present RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents, if desired, should be provided to the Appellant free of cost up to 25 pages, and beyond those, prescribed fees shall be charged as per the RTI Rules, 2012. The CPIO is further directed that he shall ensure that any personal information/identifying particulars of a third party should be adequately redacted/blackened out. The said direction should be complied with, by the CPIO within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report of the same be duly sent to the Commission, enumerating the details of documents inspected and copy of documents provided.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 16.08.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 6 of 7 CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/651216 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) DDG(Admn) Prasar Bharti, India' Public Service Broadcaster, Office of The First Appellate Authority, Directorate General: Doordarshan Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001
2. The Central Public Information Officer, Prasar Bharati, India' Public Service Broadcaster, S-Iv Section, Director General: Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001
3. Shri Shiv Raj Page 7 of 7