Central Information Commission
Dr. Devendra Kumar Sharma vs Cbse on 5 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001972/5019
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001972
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
Opp. Ashok Market
New Jaganpura Road, Subhash Nagar,
Patna-800027 (Bihar).
Respondent : Mr. Khushal Singh
Asstt. Secretary & PIO
CBSE
Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg,
Delhi-110301.
RTI application filed on : 06/04/2009
PIO replied : 16/04/2009
First appeal filed on : 01/06/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal filed on : 18/08/2009
Information sought:
(i) Copy of the Board's letter sent to the school (as mentioned in the letter dated 02/12/2008) so that Appellant can get information regarding:
a) On what date did the Board send the said letter to School?
b) What is the time limit specified by the Board to the school for sending the comments?
ii) Has the school responded to the Board's said letter? Yes/No
a) If 'yes'-
• Why the decision is being delayed?
• A copy of the School's comments in response to the Board's said letter.
b) If 'No' then as per the provisions of the Affiliation Bye-laws what is the Board's next proposed course of action to do justice to a victimized innocent teacher?
iii) The silence of the school management for such a long period on the serious issue of violation of Affiliation Bye-law and breach of power by the Chairman, School Management Committee show that the Principal has misrepresented facts against the Appellant in his letter dated 21 Feb., 2008 and has nothing to say in response to his letter dated 20 May 2008.
iv) Appellant had requested to the Board to pass directives to the school to pay allowance for the subsistence of Appellant's family till the Board administers its decision in his case.
v) a) Who are responsible for delays at various levels of decision making process in Appellant's case as shown in Annexure 2 in chronological order?
c) How many cases of violation of Affiliation Bye-laws (from Bihar) were registered before Appellant's complaint and how many of them are lodged after his case?
d) At present stage why so much time is being given to the school for sending their comments? The inordinate delay is causing miscarriage of justice to an undesirable level resulting in irreparable loss to the life, dignity and carrier of a mild honourable elderly teacher.
e) By when does the Board propose to administer its final decision in Appellant's case? Reply of PIO:
The PIO had informed to the Appellant that his case is under process and the reply will be sent to him shortly.
Grounds for First Appeal:
PIO had informed to the Appellant that his case is under process and the reply will be sent to him shortly but no reply received from the PIO.
The First Appellate Authority order:
Not mentioned.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of the information from the PIO and no action taken by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Devendra Kumar Sharma on Phone through his mobile number: 09934673386 Respondent: Mr. Khushal Singh PIO & Assistant Secretary The PIO has provided the information on 13/08/2009.He is now directed to provide the following to the Appellant:
1- Photocopy of the board's letter sent to the School. 2- Names and designations of the officers in CBSE who dealt with the Appellant's complaint & file notings on the answer provided by the School. The PIO will also provide the dates on which different officers dealt with the matter.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information described above to the Appellant before 20 October 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 PIO 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 03 November 2009 at 12.30pm 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 5 October 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(AK)