Central Information Commission
Mr. Vinesh Kumar vs O/O The Deputy Director, Education ... on 16 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002055/5172
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002055
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vinesh Kumar
Village Tajpur Khurd,
P.O. Chawalla,
New Delhi - 110071
Respondent : Mr. J.B. Singh
Public Information Officer & Deputy Director, Government of NCT, Delhi.
O/o the Deputy Director, Education Department, South West Zone: B Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043 RTI application filed on : 23/02/2009 PIO replied : 11/05/2009 First appeal filed on : 17/04/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 01/05/2009 Second Appeal received on : 27/08/2009 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Name of the computer teachers employed by The faculty comprises of two junior teachers:
the school. Madhu Yadav and Sanchita Sanki.
3. Whether the teachers fit the qualification Affirmative. Documents have been attached.
standards and the documents to prove it.
4. Green sheets for the period 2007-08 Green sheet is a confidential document which
corresponding to the sections C, E and F of cannot be made accessible without the
Class 6. authorization of senior officials. Authorization has been sought.
6. Photocopy of the timetable for all the teachers Time table for the academic year 2007-08 is not and the classes during the year 2007-08 and available. The timetable for the academic year 2008-09. 2008-09 has been attached.
7. Whether the Principal and the Vice Principal The Principal and the Vice Principal can be hauled have been taking classes regularly. The nature up for not taking regular classes, in the form of of departmental action that can be initiated forreprimand and warnings. dereliction of duties.
8. Copy of the letter bearing the signatures of the This provision does not come under the purview of students attesting whether the Principal and the the RTI Act. Vice Principal have been taking classes according to the timetable.
9. The contact details (address and the phone Information not given.
numbers) of the vigilance department.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
The FAA directed the PIO (SW-B) to provide the information within a week free of cost. Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Vinesh Kumar;
Respondent : Mr. J.B. Singh, Public Information Officer & Deputy Director; The PIO has provided the information on 11/05/2009. The Appellant states, whereas Ms. Madhu Yadav is shown as a junior faculty for computers, her name is not in the time table but the name of Ms. Kavita is there. Therefore the copy of the certificate of Ms. Kavita must be provided to the Appellant. The appellant states that there are discrepancies in the result sheet as well which have been pointed out to the PIO. The Appellant alleges that the records given to him show clear evidence that people who were supposed to take the classes have not taken them.
The PIO is directed to enquire into this matter and look at the anomalies pointed out by the Appellant and give a report to the Appellant and the Commission. The PIO is also asked to provide the copies of the relevant orders for number of classes to be taken by the Principal. The PIO was asked the reason for delay in providing the information. The PIO states that the delay was because the deemed PIO Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Principal, GBSSS, Samalka took 59 days to send the reply.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information and the report as directed above to the Appellant and the Commission before 30 November 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Mr. Jagdish Prasad is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 19 November 2009 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 16 October 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RRJ)