Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000983
Dated : August 23, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Ms. Poonam Dabas
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi
Background
1. The RTI application was filed by the Applicant on 17.2.10 with the PIO, IRLA, M/o I&B, New Delhi
seeking the following information:
i) My salary was released in August 2004 by PAOIRLA, M/o I&B, New Delhi after a gap of
ten months. Order under which my salary was released be provided.
(ii) Name and designation of the officer who ordered release of my salary be provided.
(iii) Date on which order for release of salary was issued be intimated
(iv) Reasons for release of salary in August 2004 be provided
(v) Copy of the order on payment of requisite fees be provided
(vi) A convenient date for file inspection be intimated.
2. The PIO replied on 25.3.10 stating as under:
(i) As intimated earlier, salary from the month of Nov. 2003 to 7/04 was with held due to non
regularization of period of absence by Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corpn. of India, DG:
Doordarshan. However the payment was released by PAR (IRLA) vide cheque No. 884173
dated 5.8.04 from Rs.272/ after adjusting the excess salary paid from the diesnon period from
12.2.03 to 8.11.03 as per Prasar Bharati letter No.17011/2/2004SV dated 23.7.04.
(ii) Salary was released on receipt of letter from Prasar Bharati mentioning the leave details
(iii) As stated in (ii) above
(iv) As clarified in (i) above
(v) Copy of letter dated 23.7.04 may be obtained on payment of requisite fee of Rs.2/ per page
of A4 size amount to Rs.4/
(vi) You may visit PAO (IRLA) to inspect the record on any working day after 2 PM.
3. Not satisfied with this reply the Applicant filed her first appeal on 26.3.10 wherein she stated the
following :
Point No.1 : I have not been provided copy of the order nor have I been informed as to why
information as sought under the RTI application has not been provided. Neither any information
regarding availability of the order on file nor the order has been provided.
Point No.2 : Sought the name and designation of the officer who ordered release of my salary.
No information has been provided in response to the query. The name and designation of the officer
who ordered release of my salary has not been provided
Point No.3: Pertained to the date on which the order for release of my salary was issued. I wanted to
know the exact date on which the order was issued. The information has not been provided.
Point No.4: Pertained to the reasons for which my salary was released. I have sought details
of the reasons under which my salary was finally released after withholding it arbitrarily for ten long
months. No information has been provided.
Point No.5: Clearly sought a copy of the order under which the salary was released. Copy of the
order as sought has not been provided nor any reason as to why the order has not been provided
despite a lapse of almost six years.
Point No.6: No information regarding the date and time been provided for inspection of the relevant
files as sought. No date and time have been intimated for inspection of relevant files pertaining to
release of my salary.
It is clearly both suppression and subversion of information. The very premise of the act is ‘to secure
and access information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority…”
Also Section 7(8) has not been complied with. “Where a request has been rejected under sub
section (1), the CPIO or SPIO as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the
request,
(a) the reasons for such rejection
(b) the period wihin which as appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and
(c) the particulars of the appellate authority
No information has been forthcoming on the original application and therefore, the First appeal is
being filed.
Arbitrary denial of information on issues related to payment of my salary putting my professional
career at a disadvantage is not tenable and information sought needs to be provided under the RTI
Act 2005. Denial of information has resulted in undue disadvantage to me where service promotions
are concerned. Photocopy of the order on payment of specified charges also needs to be provided.
Arbitrary stoppage and subsequent release of my salary, thus affecting my annual increment and
consequently my seniority, it is clear has been done verbally on the phone as I moved the Principal
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The PAO, IRLS, M/o I&B has gone out of its way to collude with the Indian Information Service to
promote a certain cadre. It is a clear case of malafied with the intent to put me at a disadvantage in
my career progression.
Correct information needs to be provided as to who ordered release of my salary from August 2004
onwards after being withheld from October 2003July 2004 needs to be provided.
On not receiving any reply from the Appellate Authority the Applicant filed her second appeal on
19..5.10 on the grounds that the denial of salary for ten months has affected her survival and those
dependent on her causing serious financial, mental and social harm. She stated that she is a single
parent with two children to support. Also her career progression has been tempered with affecting
her seniority and promotion. She also complained that the laid down procedure was not followed
before withholding her salary without any written orders. She questioned whether salary can be
stopped without following any laid down procedure and whether major penalty can be imposed
without issuing Charge sheet and providing reasonable opportunity to reply to the charges. Also, the
name of the officer who issued verbal orders to PSO, IRLA to release my salary has not been
provided. Being aggrieved at not receiving any response from the First Appellate Authority,
the Applicant filed a second appeal before the Commission on 19.5.10 stating that no pertinent
information had been forthcoming both to her application and her first appeal. She reiterated that the
PAO, IRLA and the Ministry of I&B had suddenly released her salary after arbitrarily withholding it for
ten months, The salary release according her coincided with her moving the CAT, Principal Bench
for release of her salary. She contended that there are laid down GOI rules in connection with
withholding or release of salary and that no major penalty can be imposed without following the laid
don procedure.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 23,
2010.
3. Ms. Sunita Sharma, PIO and Shri Anirudh Meena, represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. After hearing both sides and also after noting that contents of an earlier appeal to the Commission
regarding stoppage of her salary by the Appellant, and on perusal of submissions on record, it is the
considered opinion of the Commission that proper procedures had not been followed in the case of
either stoppage or release of salary of the Appellant. The Commission therefore the PIO, IRLA, to
provide an affidavit to the Commission by 25.9.10 providing complete information as submitted during
the hearing, once again to the Appellant and also stating that that the salary was released on the
basis of only the file notings available with them , a copy of which had been provided to the Appellant.
The PAO to clearly state that there is no other order asking IRLA to release the salary. Name and
Designation of the officer of the file notings may be provided along with date. With regard to reasons
for release of salary in August, 2004, the PIO to provide a copy of the letter dated 23.7.04 free of cost
to the Appellant while stating that except for the reasons as given in letter dated 23.7.04, no other
reasons are available on record. This information too may also be included in the affidavit. With
regard to inspection of all the relevant files, the same to be completed on 3rd September, 2010 during
working hours, starting from 11 AM. The Appellant to be provided with the attested copies of file
notings and other documents she requires. The Commission directs that the JS, Dr. D.P. Reddy to
look into whether IRLA is competent enough to release the salary or not. The PIO, Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting is also hereby directed to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a
copy to the Appellant stating that there is no separate written order to IRLA from the Ministry of
I&B either to release the salary or stop the salary of the Appellant. This affidavit too may be
provided by 25th September, 2010.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms. Poonam Dabas
Doordarshan Bhawan
Room No.510, Mandi House
TowerB, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi
2. The PIO
M/o Information & Broadcasting
Pay & Accounts Office (IRLA)
AGCR building, IP Estate
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
M/o Information & Broadcasting
Pay & Accounts Office (IRLA)
AGCR building, IP Estate
New Delhi
4. Officer Incharge, NIC