Central Information Commission
Jakkula Prudhvi Raj vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 15 September, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/NAVVS/A/2019/653448
In the matter of:
Jakkula Prudhvi Raj
... Appellant
VS
PIO / Asst. Commissioner(Admn)
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Hyderabad Region Post: Gopanpally,
Nallagandla Road, Hyderabad, Telangana 500107
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 25/06/2019 CPIO replied on : 24/07/2019 First appeal filed on : 20/08/2019 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second appeal filed on : 10/10/2019 Date of Hearing : 14/09/2020 Date of Decision : 14/09/2020 The following were present: Appellant : Heard over phone
Respondent: Shri Mathew Thomas, Assistant Commissioner & PIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought copies of reply given to the following complaints filed by him in the Deptt of Public Grievances and online status shows as cases closed:
1. DPG/O/2018/81051 dated: July 10, 2018.
2. DPG/O/2018/81026 dated: July 05, 2018.
3. DPG/O/2018/80998 dated: July 01 2018.1
Grounds for Second appeal The CPIO has denied providing the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as incomplete information was given to him as out of the three complaints mentioned in the RTI application, the CPIO had submitted that two complaints were not received but the online portal shows that all the complaints were disposed of by NVS, Hyderabad. Hence, the CPIO has given misleading information and thus he is liable for penalty.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 24.07.2019. In his written submissions, he had stated that the information has been provided to all the cases mentioned in the RTI application filed by the appellant and all the appeals filed by him have also been disposed by the First Appellate Authority. He submitted that the appellant is in the habit of filing many RTI applications and complaints on the Grievance Portal, complaints to the Ministry of Education, CBI and National Human Rights Commission. So far 30 RTI applications and 12 first appeals filed by the appellant have been disposed of. In most of the RTI applications, he is using derogatory language against senior Officers of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti like Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Asst. Commissioner which is highly objectionable.
At the end of most of his RTI applications he makes comments on non- acceptance of withdrawal of the resignation from the post of LDC held by him at JNV Krishnapuram Dist Nellore (AP) by the NVS authorities.
Giving the background of the case, he stated the appellant was on un- authorized absence for almost 2 years from 14.09.2015 till the date of submission of resignation despite repeated directions issued by the appointing authority i.e. Principal, JNV Krishnapuram to report for duty. The competent authority i.e. the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Krishnapurarn, Dist. Nellore issued a charge sheet for his unauthorized absence and constituted an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. He has not co-operated with the inquiry and submitted his resignation from the post of LDC held by him vide his letter dated 13.06.2017, in which he specifically asked for "No objection certificate" for outside employment. As he was submitting resignation to apply for outside employment and charges levelled against him 2 were for unauthorized absence only, the appointing authority took a lenient view and accepted his resignation through a speaking order dated 17.08.2017. Later on his application for withdrawal of resignation was rejected by the appointing authority i.e. Principal, JNV Krishnapuram, of Dist. Nellore and his appeal was also rejected by the Appellate authority vide his letter dated 02.01.2018. Aggrieved by the refusal of the competent authority to accept the withdrawal of resignation by the appellant, he is filing numerous RTI applications, Grievance applications, complaints to CBI, NHRC, National SC/ST Commissions etc, alleging procedural mistakes in various Vidyalayas.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that on the one hand the appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and on the other hand, the CPIO had submitted that the appellant is in the habit of filing multiple RTI applications for the purpose of taking revenge against the public authority as his withdrawal for resignation was not accepted and his services were terminated. The Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO, however, at the same time, the fact remains that the RTI application was not properly answered by the CPIO. The appellant had simply sought copies of the replies on the three complaints filed by him. For one of his complaints, a proper reply was given. However, for the other two complaints dated 01.07.2018 and 05.07.2018, the CPIO had stated that the complaints were not received by them. The appellant while contesting this reply had stated that on the online portal it has been shown that these complaints were closed.
During the hearing, the CPIO submitted that in respect of one complaint they have sent some replies to the DPG and he is willing to supply those replies to the appellant. However, with respect to the two other complaints, he submitted that they have not received them. The Commission does not concur with the submissions of the CPIO in toto as even if they have not received the two complaints, it is not clear as to on what basis the other two complaints were closed by DPG. Under such circumstances, the CPIO is directed to supply all the relevant inputs given to the DPG in respect of complaint no. 80998. With respect to the other two complaints, the CPIO is again directed to check through their records about the non-receipts of complaint no.s 81026 and 81050 and in case they have not received them as submitted by him during the hearing, he is directed to obtain the information from the DPG regarding the 3 basis on which these complaints were closed and whatever information is given by the DPG, the same should be forwarded to the appellant. Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the copies of the replies given to the DPG in respect of complaint no. 80998. For the other two complaints i.e. complaint no. 81026 and 81050, the necessary inputs should be sought from the DPG regarding the basis of closing the said complaints. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 10 days from the date of issue of this order. Thereafter, all the relevant inputs received from the DPG should be forwarded to the appellant within a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of any inputs from the DPG.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 4