Central Information Commission
Mr. Vinesh Kumar vs Directorate Of Education, Government ... on 24 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002055/5172Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002055
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Appellant : Mr. Vinesh Kumar
Village Tajpur Khurd,
P.O. Chawalla,
New Delhi - 110071
Respondent : Mr. Praphul Lugun,
Dy. Education Officer and deemed PIO Government of NCT, Delhi.
Directorate of Education
O/o the Deputy Director,
Education Department, South West-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 The faculty comprises of two junior by the school. teachers: 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 corresponding to the sections C, E and F which cannot be made accessible without of Class 6. the authorization of senior officials.
Authorization has been sought.
6. Photocopy of the timetable for all the Time table for the academic year 2007-08 is teachers and the classes during the year not available. The timetable for the 2007-08 and 2008-09. academic year 2008-09 has been attached.
7. Whether the Principal and the Vice The Principal and the Vice Principal can be Principal have been taking classes hauled up for not taking regular classes, in regularly. The nature of departmental the form of reprimand and warnings. action that can be initiated for dereliction of duties.
8. Copy of the letter bearing the signatures This provision does not come under the Page no. 1 of 4 of the students attesting whether the purview of the RTI Act. Principal and the Vice Principal have been taking classes according to the timetable.
9. The contact details (address and the Information not given.
phone 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 dated 16/10/2009:
The Appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed to provide the information and the report as directed above to the Appellant and the Commission before 30 November 2009. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the Principal Mr. Jagdish Prasad, as the deemed PIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. He was directed to present himself before the Commission 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).
Page no. 2 of 4 Brief facts leading to the show cause hearing on 23/12/2009: During the show cause hearing on 19/11/2009 Mr. Jagdish Parsad submitted that a reply dated 16/03/2009 was sent to the Education Officer, Zone 21(copy enclosed). He has also submitted proof of dispatch of this letter on 17/03/2009 (copy enclosed). Furthermore, it appeared that there was a variance between the reply given by the Principal vide his letter dated 16/03/2009 and the reply given by the then DDE (South West B) vide her letter dated 11/05/2009 in response to Query No. 1. Mr. Jagdish Parsad submitted during the show cause hearing that he had not amended his first reply at any stage.
It appeared that the statement made before the Commission by Mr. Jang Bahadur Singh maybe false. It also appeared that the delay may not be on part of the Principal but may be either on part of the DEO or the then DDE (SW-B). The Commission therefore decided to schedule another hearing on 23/12/2009 at 4 p.m. to apportion the responsibility of delay and false statement between persons.
Relevant facts arising during the show cause hearing on 23/12/2009: "The following persons were present:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Satinder Kaur, then PIO; Mr. Jang Bahadur Singh, present PIO, Mr. Praphul Lugun, Education officer, Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Principal, deemed PIO Mr. Jagdish Prasad submitted that as soon as he had received intimation that an amended reply was required he had replied. He states that he sent an amended reply dated 29/04/2009 in response to a letter dated 23/04/2009. However, he does not have a copy of the letter dated 23/04/2009.
Mr. Praphul Lugun will submit proof on 24/12/2009 that he had informed the Principal that an amended reply should be sent in compliance with the Department's notice of 18/03/2009."
Relevant facts arising during the show cause hearing on 24/12/2009: The following persons were present:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Praphul Lugun, Dy. Education Officer and deemed PIO;
Mr. Lugun has brought a copy of a letter dated 23/04/2009 sent to the Principal of the school by him which was received by the Principal. Mr. Lugun states that he received the letter from the department asking for rectification of the information on 18/03/2009 and that he forwarded it to the school on 23/04/2009. He claims that he telephoned the principal earlier but did not send any written communication. No reasonable cause for this delay is been offered by the Mr. Lugun the deemed PIO.
The commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under RTI Act on Mr. Lugun Dy. Education officer. Mr. Lugun is clearly responsible for a delay of 32 days for which no reasonable cause has been offered. The Commisison penalizes Mr. Lugun at the rate of Rs.250/- per days of delay i.e. Rs.250/- X 32(days) = Rs. 8000/-
Page no. 3 of 4 Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Praphul Lugun, Dy. Education Officer and deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been 32 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Praphul Lugun Rs. 8000/-.
The Chief Secretray of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.8000/- from the salary of Mr. Praphul Lugun, and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.4000/ per month from the salary of Mr. Praphul Lugun and remitted by the 10th of January 2010 and 10th February 2010.
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
24 December 2009
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
Delhi Sachivalaya, IP Estate
New Delhi 110002
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RRJ) Page no. 4 of 4