Central Information Commission
Satya Pal Singh vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 14 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/JNUND/A/2020/125954
Satya Pal Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
RTI Cell, New Mehrauli Road,
JNU Ring Rd, New Delhi - 110067. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30/11/2021
Date of Decision : 30/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/03/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 08/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07/09/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.03.2020 seeking the following information;1
1. Certified copy of the rules and regulations of the University for grant of charge allowances to the officials for performing additional duties by holding dual charges of the same post as assigned through office order by the University.
2. Certified copy of all office file notings made by the Administration Branch on my letters/mails dated 27/11/2018 and 25/05/2019 sent the VC/FO/Registrar for grant of charge allowances to me as per rules and regulations framed by the University.
3. Certified copy of the office file noting as approved by the Vice-Chancellor regarding sanction of charge allowances to the Registrar, JNU for performing additional duties of the Librarian.
4. Certified copies of the order/notification issued by the University regarding sanction of the charge allowances to the Registrar, JNU.
5. Certified copies of the total amount/payment vouchers of charge allowances paid to the Registrar, JNU by the Finance Branch for performing additional duties of the Librarian of the University.
6. What action the University Administration has taken on my appeal letter dated 31/10/2019 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, JNU? Provide me certified copy of the office noting and decision taken thereof by the Vice-
Chancellor regarding sanction of the charge allowances under same rules and regulations of the University.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 14.07.2020 stating as under :-
Point No. 1 to 3 and 6:- RTI application relates to Administration Branch and the information is to be provided by CPIO Admn Branch only. A copy of the this mail is also being copied to Shri P AjaiBabu, CPIO & Dy. Registrar (Admn.) for providing the same directly to you under intimation to Nodal CPIO, JNU.
Point NO. 4:- Certified copy of the Admn Branch Office Order dated 15.10.2018 sanctioning additional/charge allowance to Dr. Pramod Kumar, Registrar for performing additional duties of Librarian for the period 4.1.2018 to 9.10.2018 is annexed.
Point No. 5:- Certified copy of payment voucher for payment of Rs. 1,32,571/- as charge allowance to Dr. Pramod Kumar, Registrar for performing additional duties of Librarian for the period from 4.1.2018 to 9.10.2018 is annexed."
2Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.06.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied,appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appealon the ground of non-receipt of information against points no. 1-3 & 6 from the deemed CPIO, Deputy Registrar (Admin) to whom his RTI Application has been transferred under Section 6(3) of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: Gagandeep Singh, Dy. Registrar (Admn.)/ CPIO along with Naveen Yadav, Chief Security Officer & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 25.11.2021 and submitted that reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant as is evinced from the letter dated 07.07.2020.
The Appellant vehemently denied the receipt of the averred reply. In response to it, the CPIO at the behest of Commission agreed to resend a copy of the same to him via email.
Decision:
The Commission remarked at the outset that the information sought by the Appellant at point no. 3 regarding sanction of allowances of Registrar, JNU is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. However, the CPIO has erred in giving the file notings pertaining to sanctioned allowances of concerned person without seeking his consent under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and follow due process of law as envisaged under the RTI Act before parting with any third party's personal information which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.3
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that the reply provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act. In view of this, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.
Now, considering the hearing proceedings, the CPIO is hereby directed to share a copy of his written submission dated 25.11.2021 along with enclosures, free of cost with the Appellant through speed post and via email. The said direction shall be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4