Central Information Commission
Smt. Shampa Ganguli vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 April, 2007
ORDER
Wajahat Habibullah, C.I.C.
1. Vide a Decision Notice of 19.3.2007, we had directed as follows:
While a lenient view could be taken in that the initial response of respondent PIO Smt. Daljet Kaur was dictated by departmental policy, the very fact that an application dated 21.2.2006 was replied on 8.5.2006 indicates violation of the mandatory time schedule Under Section 7(1). Respondents could only present on their behalf the plea that the matter was referred to ACT Wing. However, we find that reference was made to ACT Wing on 12.4.2006,and reply was received from the Act Wing on 21.4.2006. Even if these 9 days are excluded from the time delay in supplying the information the delay begins on 28.3.2006 up to 11.4.2006 (15 days) and resumes from 22.4.2006 to 7.5.2006 (16 days), a total of 31 days. PIO Smt. Daljeet Kaur will, therefore, show cause on 3rd April, 2007 at 10.00 a.m. as to why a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day for each day of default i.e. 31 days amounting to Rs. 7750 should not be imposed on her.
2. In the meantime, we have received two letters from appellant Mrs. Shampa Ganguli dated 20.3.07 and 2.4.07 in which she has stated that the information provided to her during hearing has been found after examination to be incomplete, since it did not contain the enclosures stated to have been attached thereto. Ms. Daljeet Kaur, DDE and PIO on the other hand has sent us a detailed response dated 12.4.07, accounting for every day after the receipt of the application of 21.2.06 from appellant Ms. Ganguli in the District Office on 27.2.2006 as follows:
27.2.06 Above application received in this District Office.
1.3.06 Application forwarded by the Vigilance Branch (West B) to EO Zone 18 to provide the information.
17.3.06 Reminder-I issued to EO Zone 18 to provide the information. 29.3.06 Reminder-II issued to EO Zone 18 to provide the information. 5.4.06 Reminder-III issued to EO Zone 18 to provide the information. 10.4.06 Reply from Zone 18 received stating therein that the concerned file is not traceable and that the application is not covered under DRTI Act as the information pertains to Public School which is not the Public Authority with reference to the Circular of Director of Education dated 27.3.2006.
12.4.06 Letter written by this office to Act Branch that the information can not be provided in the light of the above said circular and the applicant may be informed accordingly.
15.4.06 Memorandum issued upon the DEO (Zone-18) by the undersigned for non traceable of the concerned file.
25.4.06 Reply of the DEO (Zone-18) received stated therein that the file pertains to the period of the then DEO Zone 18 and he needs 7 days time to trace the said file by contacting the previous DEO Zone. 18.
27.4.06 The above letter received back in original from Act Branch with the direction to provide the information to the applicant.
1.5.06 DEO Zone 18 was asked to provide the information on the basis of the letter received back from Act Branch.
6.5.06 Reply received from DEO Zone 18 again stating that the information cannot be provided to the applicant as the same is not covered under DRTI Act, 2001 8.5.06 The application was rejected in the prescribed Form 'C' accordingly.
3. The matter was heard on16.4.07. The following are present:
1. Ms. Shampa Ganguli, appellant
2. Mr. A. Kumar, assisting appellant
3. Ms. Daljeet Kaur, DDE
4. Mr. Pradeep Bhardwaj, LDC
5. Mr. H.K.Pandey, DEO
6. Mr. Nupesh Raheja , LDC
4. Since the attachments received from the School were available in a separate file with respondents, these were handed over to appellant Ms. Shampa Ganguli. From the explanation provided of the delay at the level of PIO, we find that although it had been explained that the matter was pending with DEO the period from 1.3.06 to 11.4.06 and again from 27.4.06 when the matter was received back from the ACT Branch remains unaccounted for. During that period the matter was pending with E.O. DEO Shri H.K. Pande who is present in the hearing has not been able to explain to our satisfaction the reasons for this delay.
5. It has been pleaded that the original file was not traceable. At best this could have been an explanation for inability to provide copies of file noting. However, since it is clear that it had been possible to create a shadow file from which copies of information sought have now been supplied to the appellant, the EO is liable for penalty. DEO has explained that this matter was pending with the E.O. Zone 18 whom he assisted. The concerned E.O. Ms. Uma Suryanarainan has since retired on 31.8.06.
6. Since the dealing Officer in this matter has retired, no penalty will lie. However, the Director (Edu) is directed to enquire into the officials responsible (1) for misplacing the file, (2) the pendency in the office at the level of E.O. in response to the original application, and (3) to fix responsibility for each against whom (4) disciplinary action be initiated under rules of the Department as mandated Under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act,2005. A report on the result of this enquiry may be sent to us by 30.4.2007.
7. Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.