Central Information Commission
Mr.R L Makhija vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003342/10804
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003342
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R.L. Makhija
G-14, Arjun Nagar,
Gali No. 4, Delhi 110051
Respondent (1) : Mr. S. P. Sharma
PIO & Assistant Director Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vigilance Department 16 Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054 Respondent (2) : Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer Municipal Corporation of Delhi Central Establishment Department Civic Center, 22nd Floor, JLN Marg, New Delhi Respondent (3) : Mr. S. S. Rana PIO & ADC(Engineering) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006 RTI application filed on : 13/08/2010 PIO replied : 09/09/2010 First appeal filed on : 24/09/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 21/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 29/11/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO Point As per circular no. F.5(27)/CED(IlI))94/pt../X/I-l-59 dated Doesn't pertains to CCD, at this A 05.03.2010 regarding promotion of 108 Assistant Engineers and stage service matters of AE(C) has adhoc promotion is extended upto 22.7.2Q 10" been decentralized by the order of As per the Applicant knowledge. two Assistant Engineer named us Competent Authority and relevant Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, list Sr. No. (683) and Mr. Suresh record has been transferred by the Kumar Lakra. list Sr. No. 65 (9031') against whom charge sheet CED to Engg. Deptt (HQ) was issued in the month of January 2010 and a part from the same circular which further shows that 14 Assistant Engineer is not appointed to the pot of Assistant Engineer is not appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis in r/o following officers, is not extended further due to filing of or issuance of the charge sheet by the police (State)/Departmental cases pending against them and they are retained to Jr. Engineer Grade by the Page 1 of 3 Department."
Point RDA No. 1/235/2009 issued against Mr. Ashok Kumar Verm As Above B. 1. (A.E) chargesheet issued on 11.02.2010.
2. RDA No. 1/31/2009 issued against Mr. Ajay Choudhary (A.E) chargesheet issued on 07.01.2010.
3. RDA No. 1/5/2009 issued against Mr. Vikas Gupta (A.E) chargesheet issued on 11.02.2010.
4. RDA No. 1/48/2009 issued against Mr. D.S. Malik (A.E) chargesheet issued on 26.03.2010.
5. RDA No. 1/39)2009 issued against Mr. K.K. Dhiran (lEE) Pertain to Vigilance Department chargesheet ssLted on 14.09.2009.
6. R.D.A No. 1/173/08 issued against Mr. P. K Raja (EE) charge sheet issued on dated 10-12-2009.
7. R.D.A No. 1/52/07 issued against Mi K. P. Singh (SE) charge sheet issued on dated 20-7-2007.
Information required by the appellant
1. Please provide the details regarding the current status of 108 Doesn't pertains to CED. It pertains Assistant Engineer (Civil) after 22.07.2010. to Engg. (HQ)
2. Please provide the promotion copy of Mr. K.K. Dhiran as E.E. Promotion order regarding assignment of look after charge in respect of Sh. K.K. Dhiran EE(C) is enclosed herewith.
3. In above mentioned circular, 14 Engineers got reverted back As stated in Para-1 because of issuing of Charge sheet. Please provide the details regarding the above mentioned four Assistant Engineers, Are they revered back as charge sheet is issued against him.
4. If MCD doesn't revert them till date, then how mach time is With regard to reversion of required by the department for reverted these Assistant Engineers. AE(Civil), information is to be Executive Engineers, SE. Please provide the details separately for provided by the Engg. (HQ). In each officer. connection with reversion EE(C)/SE(C) after a period of 01 years, guidelines or Govt. of India doesn't permit.
5. After issuing of charge sheet by vigilance which departments get Doesn't pertains to CED. It pertains knowledge /information about the charge sheet. to Engg. (HQ)
6. Please provide the details for the above mentioned 7 Engineers, Doesn't pertains to CED. It pertains after issuing of chargesheet from vigilance department get to Engg. (HQ) knowledge about this via vigilance. Please provide the copy.
7. Please provide the details of No RPA from these 108 Assistant Doesn't pertains to CED. It pertains Engineers after 22.07.2010, if yes then please provide the copy. to Engg. (HQ)
8. If No RDA was taken, then what the reason for not taking RDA. Doesn't pertains to CED. It pertains to Engg. (HQ)
9. On which date, CED got knowledge about the issuing of Charge Doesn't pertains to CED. It pertains sheet from the Vigilance. Department against 4 A.E. to Engg. (HQ)
10. On which date. CED got knowledge about the issuing of Charge Information is not available in sheet from the Vigi1anc Department against Mr. K.K. Dhiran. record.
9. Please provide the details of any Charge sheet issued against 108 Doesn't pertains to CED. It pertains A.E during the period 01.01.2010 till date. to Engg. (HQ) Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received from PIO Page 2 of 3 Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The appellant was asked to attend the apea1 hearing before the undersigned on 13.10.2010. He appeared in person. The matter was discussed in detail. I perused the reply provided by PIO/CED. In the reply the PIO has stated that queries nos. 1, 3, part information of query no.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 9 pertain to PIO ADC(Engg)/HQ.
The PIO/ADC (Engg)/HQ is hereby directed provide the requisite information to the applicant free of cost within 10 working days positively.
In view of above the present appeal is disposed off."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
After the First Appellate Authority order no reply received from the PIO/ADC (Engg) (HQ).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R.L. Makhija, G-14, Arjun Nagar, Gali No. 4, Delhi 11005; Respondent (1): Mr. S. P. Sharma, PIO & Assistant Director, Vigilance Department Civil Lines; Respondent (2): Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, PIO & Administrative Officer, CED; Respondent (3): Absent;
The FAA had ordered Additional Dy. Commissioner (Engineering) to provide part of the information on queries 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9 to the Appellant. The Appellant states that he has not received any information from ADC(Engineering).
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO/ADC(Engineering) is directed to provide the information as per the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to the Appellant before 30 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO/ADC(Engineering) within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO/ADC(E) 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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.
ADC (Engineering) will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 January, 2011. He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent 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 06 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ) Page 3 of 3