Central Information Commission
Mr. Ranjan Sharma vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, Delhi on 22 April, 2013
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2010/003466
Parties:
Appellant
Mr. Ranjan Sharma
82Arsh Complex,
AlfaI, Greater Noida,
DistrictGautam Buddha Nagar, (UP.)
Respondent
PIO & Dy. Director of Education (South) Directorate of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi South District Defence Colony, New Delhi.
Information Commissioner(s): Mrs. Annapurna Dixit _______________________________________________________________ In the Central Information Commission at New Delhi File No: CIC/SG/A/2010/003466
1. The instant case arises out of an RTI application filed on 17/09/2010 before the PIO, Directorate of Education, South District, New Delhi seeking information about one Sh. Arab Singh, the then Principal of GBSSS about complaints made by the teachers/staff, status of enquiry in this regard, name/s of persons found responsible for wrong doings, copy of transfer order of the said Sh. Arab Singh etc. The PIO failed to reply despite passage of the time as stipulated by law, resulting in the Appellant filing a First appeal dated 21/10/2010. The First Appellate Authority by his order dated 18.11.2010 noted that information has not yet been provided to the Appellant. The First Appellate Authority further noted that APIO (South) informed that reply is still awaited from Education Officer Zone23. The FAA directed the DDE/PIO (South) to provide correct and complete information as required by the appellant in his RTI application within 10 days free of cost and also warned the Education Officer, Zone23 to be careful in future and to ensure that the information is provided to the Appellants within the stipulated time. Since the FAA's order was also not complied with by the PIO, the Appellant was compelled to approach the Central Information Commission and file the Second Appeal on 09.12.2010.
2. The Commission passed an order on 28.12.2010 directing as follows:
" ....... The Appeal is allowed. The PIO/DDE (South) is directed to provide the information as directed by the First Appellate Authority to the appellant before 15 January 2011. 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 subsection (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. She has further refused to obey the orders of her 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 show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her. She will give her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 January 2011. She 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.
3. The Commission received written submissions dated 20.01.2011 from the PIO mentioning that RTI application dated 17.09.2010 was forwarded to the deemed PIO & DEO on 24.09.2010. The PIO further elaborated that despite repeated reminders issued to the DEO, the information was received only on 13.01.2011, which was sent to the Appellant the following day i.e. 14.01.2011. The Commission also received a letter dated 20.01.2011 from the Appellant alleging discrepancies in the information furnished to him. Thus taking cognizance of the Appellant's grievance, the Commission through the Dy. Registrar issued a letter dated 21.07.2011 directing the PIO to review the reply furnished to the Appellant and provide the correct and complete information as per the available records before 20.08.2011 with a copy to the Commission. Response to the show cause was directed to be furnished by 25.08.2011 by the PIO & DEO.
4. The Respondent sent a letter dated 24.08.2011 referring to the letter dated 21.07.2011 of the Commission stating that the reply provided to the Appellant had been reviewed very carefully and based on available office records, complete and correct information has been submitted to the RTI branch on 19.08.2011 for onward furnishing to the Appellant. Copy of the same alongwith with speed post details have been duly placed on record.
5. Responding to the Show Cause for delay in supply of information, the Respondent has submitted that the RTI application dated 17.09.2010 was received by the PIO/ Education Officer, on 24.09.2010. The same was returned to the RTI branch on 24.09.2010 since enclosures as mentioned therein were not found attached with the application. The RTI branch preferred neither to return the application to the PIO with enclosures nor make any further correspondence in this regard. It is further stated that even the hearing notice dated 04.11.2010 issued by the Appellate Authority and copy of the FAA's order dated 18.11.2010 were not provided to the answering Respondent by the RTI Branch. Likewise, the copy of the instant Second appeal was also not provided to the answering Respondent. The answering Respondent submits that accordingly for lack of knowledge about the necessary documents, the answering Respondent was totally unaware of developments in the case till the DDE (South)/PIO directed him orally on 13.01.2011 to provide the information to the Appellant. The oral directions were complied with and information was sent to the RTI Branch on 13.01.2011 itself by the answering Respondent for onward furnishing to the Appellant. The answering Respondent has concluded her contention stating that she is not responsible for the delay and had instead been always very careful about handling the RTI cases within the framework of time as mandated in law.
6. In the facts of the case, it is observed that the answering Respondent has acted with considerable promptness in responding to the Appellant. The grievance of incomplete and incorrect information has also been answered by the Respondent vide communication dated 19.08.2011. Thereafter there has been no response nor grievance/s or objections from the Appellant. The Commission finds the explanation rendered by the Respondent for the delay caused in providing information as reasonable cause. Hence, the Commission finds this a fit case to drop the penalty proceedings.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Ranjan Sharma 82Arsh Complex, AlfaI, Greater Noida, DistrictGautam Buddha Nagar, (UP.)
2. PIO & Dy. Director of Education (South) Directorate of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi South District Defence Colony, New Delhi.