Central Information Commission
Manasi Singhi vs Department Of Training And Technical ... on 20 September, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/129629
F. No.CIC/AIACT/A/2018/106279
F. No.CIC/DOTTE/A/2018/171152
Date of Hearing : 11.09.2018
Date of Decision : 11.09.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Manasi Singh
Respondent : CPIO
Nodal Officer -RTI Section
Ambedkar Institute of Advanced
Communication Technologies &
Research
Through: Sh. J S Rath - tte,
Pitampura [file no. 71152];
Dr. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Nayan
Mokashi
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.01.2017, 06.09.2017&
27.03.2017
PIO replied on : 30.01.2017, 06.10.2017&
27.04.2017
First Appeal filed on : 02.02.2017, 06.11.2017&
22.05.2017
First Appellate Order on : 03.04.2017, 05.12.2017&
11.07.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 02.05.2017, 30.01.2018&
11.10.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/129629 Vide RTI application dated 05.01.2017, the appellant sought the following information:-
1. Copies of the Rules and procedures governing selection for the post of Associate Professor Non-Technical (Applied Chemistry) with Ambedkar Institute of Advanced Communication Technologies & Research, Govt of NCT of Delhi and the copy of the proposal with its annexure received from Govt of NCT of Delhi in this respect.
2. Copies of the entire note sheet, recommendations, documents and applications for selection for the post of Associate Professor Non-
Technical (Applied Chemistry) with Ambedkar Institute of Advanced Communication Technologies & Research, Govt of NCT of Delhi.
3. Copies of the entire note sheet, recommendations, conclusion and documents for examination of API score of the undersigned by the Committee after the complaint of Dr. Manjari Sharma.
PIO/AIACT&R vide letter dated 30.01.2017 replied as under:-
1. An inquiry in this matter is going on hence at this stage no information can be provided.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/HOD, AIACT&R vide letter dated 03.04.2017 upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and submit their respective contentions, as already submitted before.
Decision:
In the light of the aforementioned facts as are borne out from the records of the case, it is noted that Respondents have denied any information to the appellant by merely stating that inquiry is pending in the matter. The Commission does not find it a suitable reply, in the light of well settled law in this regard that mere pendency of inquiry cannot be a ground for denying information in toto. Also, an inquiry cannot be into perpetuity. In any case, information sought in the point 1 cannot be part of any enquiry. Thus response of the PIO/AIACT&R is set aside as untenable.
The Commission hereby directs the Respondent to furnish complete information against the query number 1 viz. "Copies of the Rules and procedures governing selection for the post of Associate Professor Non-Technical (Applied Chemistry) with Ambedkar Institute of Advanced Communication Technologies & Research, Govt of NCT of Delhi and the copy of the proposal with its annexure received from Govt of NCT of Delhi in this respect." In addition to the query number 1, Respondent shall also furnish information about the stage at which the Inquiry is pending, who is conducting the inquiry and the expected time which will be taken for conclusion of the inquiry. This complete information shall be furnished by the Respondent within fourteen days of receipt of this order, with a compliance report marked to the Commission, reachable positively by 04.10.2018. It is made clear that dereliction of these directions will attract penal action of non compliance as stipulated under the law.
CIC/AIACT/A/2018/106279 Vide RTI application dated 06.09.2017, the appellant sought following information:-
1. Copies of the entire note sheet, proceedings and the entire record in the file in respect of my ACR(APAR) for the period April 2015 to March 2016 submitted on 22.11.2016 (vide diary no.287 dt. 9.12.2016, PPL/AIACTR).
2. Copies of the entire note sheet, proceedings and the entire record in the file in respect of my ACR(APAR) for the period April 2014 to 21 July 2016 submitted on 12.11.2016 (diary no. 290 dt.14.12.2016, PPL/AIACTR)
3. Copies of the entire note sheet, proceedings and the entire record in the file in respect of my ACR(APAR) for the period 21 July to 31 March 2016 submitted on 12.11.2016 (diary no. 289 dt. 14/12/2016, PPL/AIACTR).
4. Copies of the entire note sheet, proceedings and the entire record in the file in respect of my ACR(APAR) for the period April 2013 to March 2014 submitted on 08.07.2014.
5. Copies of the entire note sheet, proceedings and the entire record in the file in respect of my ACR(APAR) for the period April 2012 to March 2013 submitted on 01.05.2013.
CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.10.2017 as under:-
1 to 3 - Relevant copies attached
4 to 5- No record available Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/HOD, AIACT&R vide letter dated 05.12.2017 upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and submit their respective contentions, as already submitted before. The appellant has submitted that she has been denied 2 of her own ACRs on pretext of non availability of records, whereas no reason has been assigned for non availability of ACR(APAR) for the period of April 2013 to March 2014 and for the period of April 2012 to March 2013. Decision:
After hearing contention of parties and perusal of records of the case, the Commission notes that denying access to the employee of his/her own ACRs is in contravention of well settled law and directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as pronounced vide judgement in the case of Dev Dutt vs UOI. Every employee is entitled to copy of his/her ACR and Respondent has not furnished any plausible explanation for denial of the ACR, except non availability of records.
The Commission hereby directs the respondent to furnish the appellant's ACR(APAR)s pertaining to year April 2012 to March 2013 and April 2013 to March 2014. In the event that ACRs are not available in the office, the FAA, AIACTR shall file an affidavit clearly explaining the cause of non availability of ACR of its employee. The Respondent shall file a Compliance Report by or within 04.10.2018 after serving advance copy of ACRs/Affidavit (as directed above) to the appellant. Non compliance of these directions shall attract penal consequence.
CIC/DOTTE/A/2018/171152 Vide RTI application dated 27.03.2017, the appellant sought following information:-
1. Copies of the entire note sheet, recommendations, conclusions and documents for the complaint of Physical Harassment against Mr. A.K. Jha who is working as a professor in physics with AIACTR, Geeta Colony, Delhi. This complaint was sent to the Lt. Governor on 08.12.2016, followed by a reminder on 03.01.2017.
APIO/Ashutosh Kumar informed that appellant RTI application pertains to Health & Family Welfare Department & DTTE, therefore RTI application transferred to them. Dy. Director (SB), DTTE vide letter dated 18.04.2017 requested to inspect the concerned file(s) available in this branch on any working day during 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM by giving two days prior intimation, that to confirm the availability of file. Appellant availed the opportunity of inspection on 17.05.2017 and photocopies of pages sought by her were provided on the same day. FAA vide letter dated 11.07.2017 observed that sought information is covered by exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Deliberation between both parties reveal that Respondent has provided inspection of their records to the appellant without disclosing any material information in respect of the complaint of Physical Harassment against Mr. A.K. Jha, which she had filed in January 2017. The Appellant has stated that shortly after filing of the complaint, she was transferred away. Hence she filed the RTI application seeking information about the outcome of the complaint filed by her.
The Respondent states that Enquiry in the said case, as referred by the appellant, has been pending before the Director of Vigilance.
Decision:
After hearing averments of the parties and perusal of records of the case, the Commission notes that facts of this case indicate that the Supreme Court guidelines as well laid down and termed as the Vishakha guidelines, have been sidelined. The Apex Court had held in 1997, that pending formal legislation, these guidelines had been set out to for dealing with sexual harassment cases, caused to women employees at workplace. Subsequently, a full fledged statute has been passed by the Parliament, which is a more robust law and sets out adequate legal mandates for employers to ensure safety and security to the physical and mental well being of women work force. The Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 not only requires setting up of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at each office or branch, by an employer employing more than 10 employees of any gender, but also emphasises on conducting the enquiry into sexual harassment complaints within a time bound manner.
Unfortunately, the deliberation during hearing indicates that the Respondent has been taking the entire issue of the complaint filed by the appellant quite casually and has not submitted any written response for delay in the Inquiry. The Commission is not in agreement with such slack attitude exhibited by the Respondent and directs the Respondent to submit a complete and accurate Action Taken Report with respect to the complaint filed by the appellant, exact stage at which the investigation is pending currently and also clearly state the expected time for concluding the Enquiry in this case. The ACTION TAKEN REPORT containing the abovementioned specifications shall be provided by the Respondent to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, with a copy thereof positively marked to the Commission. The Commission must receive the Report within 04.10.2018, failing which non compliance proceedings shall automatically ensue.
The aforementioned appeals are thus disposed of with the above directions.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer