Central Information Commission
Mr.Mohd Asim vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 10 May, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000698/7675
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000698
Appellant : Mohd. Asim,
10, 1st Floor,
Nizzamuddin West Market,
New Delhi-110013
Respondent : Mr. S. C. Kaushik
Public Information Officer & Coordinator Computer O/o the Public Information Officer, New Delhi Municipal Council, Room No. 1005, 10th Floor, Palika Kendra, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 03/10/2009 PIO replied : 06/01/2010 First Appeal filed on : 03/12/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 05/02/2010 Second Appeal Received on : 17/03/2010 Notice of Hearing Sent on : 01/04/2010 Hearing Held on : 10/05/2010 S.No Information Sought PIO's Reply Decision of FAA
1. Supply all certified copies of Photocopy enclosed. The available copies of seniority list issued from (Page no. 01 to 81) seniority list from page 01/01/1990 till date for the no. 53 to 67 have been TGT teachers working in shown to the applicant different schools of NDMC. which are not clearly readable. The photocopy of the said document shall appear in the same way as provided earlier hence the Appellant has agreed that photocopy of the same shall be of no use if it is not readable.
2. Whether there has been any Yes. No comments.
change in seniority of any of the official in the Seniority List issued for TGT teacher since 1990.
3. If yes, then supply all the Earlier notings, It is again ascertained Page 1 of 4 certified copies of relevant deliberation are not that the documents in note sheets, deliberations, available in the question i.e note sheets, comments, etc. and the department. However the deliberations, comments approval of competent latest approval is appended etc. and the approval of authority for all changes, herewith. the competent authority which led to change in for all changes in the Seniority list. seniority lists are not available in the deptt.
4. Whether any of the affected No, previous record is Same as above in officials has ever represented available in the question no. 3. against the change in Seniority Department. However the list of TGT teachers. latest approval is appended herewith.
(Page no. 87)
5. If yes, the supply certified Copies of all the Earlier representations copies of all the representations received are not available in the representations received for for from TGTs have been deptt. correction in the seniority list appended wherewith for for the TGT teachers. ready references.
(Page no. 88 to 89)
6. Furnish certified copies of all Copy of note sheet Not available.
the relevant note sheets, appended herewith for deliberations, and comments ready reference. etc. for the action (Page No. 82 to 87 as rely representations received for to. Q. No. 3) correction in the seniority list for the TGT teachers.
7. If not action has been taken for Not applicable in view of Not available.
the representation for reply of Q. No. 6 above. correction in the seniority list of the TGT teacher, then supply the reasons for the same.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not furnished till date.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
As above.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Incomplete & partly not readable information furnished by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mohd. Asim;
Respondent: Mr. S. C. Kaushik, Public Information Officer & Coordinator Computer;
The PIO has given some of the information but is unable to give information on queries 3 to 7 since the relevant file is stolen/lost. The PIO states that he had sought the assistance of Mr. Page 2 of 4 Deepak Kohali, Dy. Director of Education under Section 5(4) on 14/10/2009. Mr. Kohali did not give any information within time and informed the PIO that the file was lost only on 06/01/2010.Page 3 of 4
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The deemed PIO Dy. Director of Education Mr. Deepak Kohali is directed to file a police complaint about the theft/loss of the said file giving the names of the officers who last handled the file. A copy of the Police Complaint will be sent to the Appellant before 05 June 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. Deepak Kohali, Dy. Director of Education within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO 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.
It appears that the deemed 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.
Mr. Deepak Kohali, Dy. Director of Education will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 03 June 2010 at 3.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
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 10 May 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj CC:
To, Mr. Deepak Kohali, Dy. Director of Education through Mr. S. C. Kaushik, Public Information Officer & Coordinator Computer;Page 4 of 4