CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002039/5115
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002039
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Kailash Sharma
Community Centre, South Ex. Part – 2,
New Delhi – 110049.
Respondent : Mr. Naresh Pratap
Public Information Officer &
Dy. Director (CSD)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Community Services Department
16, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines,
Delhi - 110054.
RTI application filed on : 21/04/2009
PIO replied : 15/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 25/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 11/06/2009
Second Appeal received on : 21/08/2009
S.No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. The basis on which break in service could be The employee had not taken approval
made and promotion denied to the employee of leave properly. The application for
when he had already been approved earned leave and certificate sent by the
leave from 03/01/2008 to 28/01/2008 and employee, was not approved by the
medical leave from 29/01/2008 to competent authority.
19/09/2008 by the department.
2. Copy of the certificate and medical leave The Appellant was asked to visit in
which the employee had submitted from the head office so that he can check
said dates desired documents.
3. Whether the Department had taken File for medical leave from
permission from Director/Community 29/01/2008 to 18/09/2008 was sent
Service Department about the leave which for approval before Additional
the employee (Mr. Kailash Sharma) had Commissioner which was rejected.
taken from 29/01/2008 to 18/09/2008.
4. Whether the Department had sent any The Employee had not taken any
memorandum to the employee during approval for leaving station nor he
medical leave. gave his whereabouts during his
medical leave.
5. Details of remaining medical and earned As given in query no. 2.
leave of the said employee.
6. Whether the employee can be given rebate Bifurcate tax was given when the
when he had already been paid a sum of employee apply for it.
Rs.21000/- as house rent in the year of
2008-09.
7. Details of rebate in income tax, which is The limit of maximum non-taxable
given as school fee of Rs.10360/- by the amount in the financial year of 2008-
employee. 09 was Rs.100000/- including school
fee.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA in its order observed that the reply given by the PIO was satisfactory. The FAA further
directed the PIO to give the copy of the documents to the Appellant within 10 days from the
issue of the order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the FAA’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Kailash Sharma
Respondent : Mr. Naresh Pratap, PIO
The Respondent had provided the information but not given the photocopies of the
accompanying documents. He demanded Rs.42/- as additional fee for the photocopies on
04/08/2009. He had no legal bases for this and he had not provided the information even now. As
per the RTI Act he was duty bound to provide the information free of cost once the 30 days
period was over.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information to the Appellant before 20 October 2009.
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 sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within
30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the 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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 12 November 2009 at
12.00pm 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.
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
09 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)