Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Jain vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 24 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646499+
CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646368
CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646353
CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646157
CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646199
Ashok Kumar Jain ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Jawahar Lal Nehru University,
New Delhi ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:
S. File No. RTI CPIO FA FAO SA
No.
1 646499 24.04.2023 27.04.2023 04.06.2023 12.06.2023 27.09.2023
2 646368 08.04.2023 08.05.2023 04.06.2023 08.06.2023 26.09.2023
3 646353 08.04.2023 08.05.2023 04.06.2023 08.06.2023 Nil.
4 646157 03.04.2023 02.05.2023 04.06.2023 08.06.2023 24.09.2023
5 646199 03.04.2023 02.05.2023 05.06.2023 08.06.2023 25.09.2023
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Hearing: 20.05.2024
Date of Decision: 22.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Page 1 of 12
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No.: CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646499
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Description: I have been informed by JNU in response to my RTI application (Ref JNUND/R/E/23/00198/2) that DO letter of Director General of Audit (Central Expenditure) addressed to Prof Santishree Dhulipadi Pandit, VC, JNU bearing letter no complaint of JNU/Spl point/2018-23/1750 dated 10.03.2023 was sent by the office of VC, JNU to Rector II on 14.03.2023 vide despatch no 347 for further necessary action.
In this connection the following information may please be provided:
(i) The details of action taken by Rector II on the abovementioned 00 letter of DGACE dated 10.03.2023 may please be provided.
(ii) Photocopies of the file in which this letter of DGACE dated 10.03.2023 has been dealt with, including photocopies of the note side as well as the correspondence side, may please be provided.
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The said letter received by this office vide diary no. 37 dated 14.03.2023 was forwarded to the office of Registrar vide our diary No. 145 on 20.03.2023 for further action."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA replied vide order dated 12.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 2 of 12(i) Your query no. 1 has already been replied appropriately. No other information is available with this office pertaining to your query no. 1.
(ii) The query no. 2 pertains to Academic Branch and the CIOP (Rector-II Office) has been instructed to do the needful with regard to your query no. 2.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.09.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646368
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Brief: I had sent a letter to VC, JNU dated 18.01.2023 regarding inordinate delay in recovery of overpayment made to Dr Neelima Mondal, Associate Professor, JNU in spite of directions issued by UGC, MoE and CAG (copy attached) In this regard the following information may kindly be furnished as per the RTI Act, 2005.
(i) Details of action taken on my letter may kindly be intimated.
(ii) Copies of the note side as well as the correspondence side of the file cover to cover including the notings made by all the officers and the date(s) on which the notings have been made, may please be provided.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Since the outcome of the committee is awaited, therefore, the information cannot be shared"
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA replied vide order dated 08.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 3 of 12"As informed by the finance branch, the arrears of revision of pay as per 7 th CPC in respect of Dr. Neelima Mondal have been kept on hold."
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.09.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646353
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Brief: I had sent a letter to VC, JNU dated 22.12.2022 regarding inordinate delay in recovery of overpayment made to Dr Neelima Mondal, Associate Professor, JNU in spite of directions issued by UGC, MoE and CAG (copy attached) In this regard the following information may kindly be furnished as per the RTI Act, 2005.
(i) Details of action taken on my letter may kindly be intimated.
(ii) Copies of the note side as well as the correspondence side of the file cover to cover including the notings made by all the officers and the date(s) on which the notings have been made, may please be provided.
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Since the outcome of the committee is awaited, therefore, the information cannot be shared"
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA replied vide order dated 08.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"As informed by the finance branch, the arrears of revision of pay as per 7 th CPC in respect of Dr. Neelima Mondal have been kept on hold."Page 4 of 12
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646157
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Brief: The University Grants Commission (UGC) vide its letter F No. 28- 6/2012(CU)Vol II dated 13 March 2023 (copy attached) addressed to Registrar, JNU regarding the subject - Excess payment and undue financial benefit given to Dr Neelima Mondal, Associate Professor, JNU, New Delhi - regarding, has directed JNU to send action taken report on its letter of even no dated 10.11.2022 on priority basis.
In this regard the following information may please be furnished:
(i) The date on which UGC letter dated 13.03.2023, referred to above was received in JNU.
(ii) The date on which this letter was received in Academic I section.
(iii) The date on which SO (Academic I) put up this letter to AR(Academic).
(iv) The date on which AR (Academic) put up this letter to Registrar.
(v) The date on which Registrar put up this letter to Rector II/VC, JNU.
(vi) Copy of the note side as well as the correspondence side of the file including the notings made by all the officers of JNU may please be available along with details of action taken on the UGC letter dated 13.03.2023.
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Point No. (i): UGC letter dated 13.03.2023 received in JNU on 13.03.2023 through email.
Point No. (ii): Please refer (1) above.Page 5 of 12
Point No. (iii) to (vi): Since the outcome of the committee is awaited, therefore, the information cannot be shared.
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA replied vide order dated 08.06.2023 observed as under:-
"...Point No. (iii) to (vi): As informed by the finance branch, the arrears of revision of pay as per 7th CPC in respect of Dr. Neelima Mondal have been kept on hold."
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.09.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/JNUND/A/2023/646199
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Brief: The Director General of Audit (Central Expenditure) in his DO letter no complaint of JNU/Spl point 2018-23/1750 dated 10 March 2023 addressed to Prof Santishree Dhulpudi Pandit, VC, JNU has inter alia asked for compliance of the audit para - excess payment and undue financial benefit given to Dr Neelima Mondal, Associate Professor. The letter states that the correctness of the audit observation has been verified by both the Ministry of Education and UGC. In this regard the following information may please be furnished:
(i) The date on which DO letter of DGACE dated 10.03.2023, referred to above was received in the office of VC, JNU.
(ii) The date on which this letter was received in Academic I section.
(iii) The date on which SO (Academic I) put up this letter to AR(Academic).
(iv) The date on which AR (Academic) put up this letter to Registrar.
(v) The date on which Registrar put up this letter to Rector II/VC, JNU.Page 6 of 12
(vi) Copy of the note side as well as the correspondence side of the file including the notings made by all the officers of JNU may please be available along with details of action taken on the DO letter of DGACE.
..., etc./ other related information 5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Point No. (i): DGACE letter dated 10.03.2023 received in JNU on 13.03.2023.
Point No. (ii): Please refer (1) above.
Point No. (iii) to (vi): Since the outcome of the committee is awaited, therefore, the information cannot be shared.
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA replied vide order dated 08.06.2023 observed as under:
"...Point No. (iii) to (vi): As informed by the finance branch, the arrears of revision of pay as per 7th CPC in respect of Dr. Neelima Mondal have been kept on hold."
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.09.2023.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
6. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. M.K Manuj, D.R & CPIO and Mr. Anil Bajaj, A.R, attended the hearing in person.
7. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought the information regarding undue payment made to the Dr. Neelima and her appointment. He further submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought. A relevant para of the written submission of the appellant is reproduced as under:-
Page 7 of 12"I had sought for information from CPIO, JNU, New Delhi - 110067 vide my application dated 24.04.2023, which the Ld. CPIO, JNU denied to provide information against two of my queries under Sl. 1 & 2 on the plea that Quote - The said letter received by its office from VC office diary no. 37 dated 14.03.2023 was forwarded to the office of Registrar vide our diary No. 145 on 20.03.2023 for further action - Unquote.
As the FAA, JNU also failed to adjudicate this matter, hence, 2nd appeal was filed before the Hon'ble CIC for kind adjudication by the Hon'ble Commission.
In this connection, it is to be noted that the information sought for involves corruption as overpayment of lakhs of rupees from public exchequer has been made, the information sought for cannot be denied. Further, it is to mention that the matter has already been published in Print Media as well as the question has been raised on 06.08.2018 by an esteemed Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), copies of the press clippings and the question & the answer given by the Hon'ble MoS, MHRD. Therefore, the information sought for cannot be denied.
As the Ld. CPIO, JNU has not provided the information sought, I would request the Hon'ble CIC to recommend for disciplinary action against the CPIO under the service rules applicable as per Section 20 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, as the CPIO, did not provide the information sought for within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 and avoided to provide the information sought, I would request your kind honour to impose penalty of Rs. 25, 000/- on the concerned CPIO. I would also request the honourable CIC to provide compensation to the undersigned u/s 19 (8) (b) for the acts of its officials to the tune of Rs. 5000/- for not supplying the information and thus violating his fundamental rights and also the mental agony and anguish caused to the undersigned.
It is also to point out before your kind-self that the FAA was requested to give me an opportunity to be heard during hearing of 1st appeal so that I get a chance of presenting my case in order to avoid breach of natural justice as per the decision of Page 8 of 12 the Hon'ble CIC dated 21.10.2014/22.11.2014 in File No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000254 was not adhered to, the Hon'ble Commission may kindly like to take necessary action as deemed fit and proper.
Finally, I would request you kindly to direct the concerned CPIO/Appellate Authority, JNU for providing correct and complete information as sought at the earliest free of cost."
8. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that due responses to all the RTI applications had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letters dated 27.04.2023, 08.05.2023 and 02.05.2023, wherein available information had been provided to the appellant. He further submitted that a committee was constituted in the case of Dr. Neelima Mondal and recovery of undue payment had been started, however, Dr. Neelima approached the hon'ble Delhi High court regarding the same and vide order dated 13.03.2024, hon'ble high court has stayed the recovery. He stated that note side as well as the correspondence side of the file including the notings made by all the officers of JNU and related issues could not be provided as committee enquiry was still going on and was also related to third-party information. A relevant para of the written submission of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
1. The RTI application was received in the Office of Nodal CPIO, JNU on 24.04.2023.
2. The RTI application was processed and forwarded to the concerned CPIO of the University i.e. CPIO, Rector-II Office, JNU. Therefore, the information/reply held/available in the office of CPIO, Rector-II, JNU was sent to the applicant through online RTI portal on 27.04.2023 (Annexure-I).
3. The 1 Appeal dated 04.06.2023 of Shri Ashok Kumar Jain was also processed by the FAA/Rector-11 and the CPIO, Rector-II office was instructed by the FAA to forwarded the RTI Application to CPIO, Academic Branch, JNU for providing the desired information/reply w.r.t. query No.02 and the appeal was disposed of accordingly through online RTI portal on 12.06.2023 (Annexure-II). Therefore, the Page 9 of 12 reply of query 2, as received from the CPIO, Academic Branch, was also sent to the appellant vide email dated 14.07.2024 (Annexure-III, page: 3-6)
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the information regarding recovery in the matter of Dr. Neelima Mondal was also provided to the applicant in response to his RTI application dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure-IV, page:7-9).
5. It is also submitted for kind information of Hon'ble Commissioner that the High Court of Delhi has stayed the recovery vide order dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure-V, page 10-12) and the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court.
6. The appellant made Second Appeal to the Hon. CIC without any copy to the CPIO, JNU."
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate replies to all the RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 27.04.2023, 08.05.2023 and 02.05.2023. Further, the note side was related to third party information the disclosure of which is exempted under RTI Act, Section 8 (1) (j). In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, Page 10 of 12 ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
10. Further, the Commission advices the CPIO to invoke the right exemption clauses under these circumstances. Also, it is not mandatary on the FAA to call for a personal hearing while disposing of the FA. Perusal of the records further revealed that the appellant had grievance with regard to recovery of undue payment from Dr. Neelima Mondal which has been stayed by the hon'ble court vide its order dated 13.03.2024. That being so and the reply having been given, no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter. With this observation, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 22.05.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनगल एस एस निकारा (ररटायर्ग )) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 11 of 12 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Jawahar Lal Nehru University, Deputy Registrar & CPIO, (Administration Branch), J.N.U., New Delhi-110067 Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)