CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
SHOWCAUSE HEARING
In Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00024/1148adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00024
People Present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sharma on behalf of Mr. Taj Mohammad
Respondent; Mr. Hari Om Gupta, ADE-Vigilance and Mr. S.K.Sharma on behalf of
PIO(H.Q.), Mr. H.S.Cahaudhary.
Relevant facts emerging during Showcause hearing:
A decision has been given on 19th January 2009 in which the appellant Mr. Taj
Mohammad had sought a copy of the report of enquiry officer and final action taken
on the complaint filed with the Director of Education vide diary no. 10343 R&I
Branch, Directorate of Education Delhi on 31st March 2008. The complaint was
regarding an allegation of bribery against Mr. V.C.Pachouri, A.D. Estate
Mr. Hari Om Gupta and Mr. S.K.Sharma claimed that the complaint was first
received by Addl. D.E..ACT branch on 1/04/2008. They in turn passed it on to D.D.E.
Central on 3/04/2008. Nothing is known beyond this.
The RTI application has a still more curious journey as follows:
- The RTI application was first received by PIO(H.Q.) on : 18/06/2008
- The PIO(H.Q.) sought assistance under Section 5(4)
from A.D.Vigilance: 23/06/2008
- A.D.Vigilance forwarded it to A.D.ACT: 09/07/2008
- A.D.ACT sent it to PIO(H.Q.)
presumably to complete a circle: 15/07/2008
- PIO(H.Q.) forwarded it to PIO D.D.E.Central: 22/07/2008
- D.D.E.Central transferred it to
PIO Anglo Arbic Senior Secondary School,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi on: 07/08/2008
The Commission finds the whole approach of all the officers to be completely
irresponsible. The Commission is concerned about the fact that inspite of the penalty
notice issued to Mr. Hari Om Gupta and a clear direction to give the information to
the appellant by 5th February 2009 the officers of the Public Authority have come to
the Commission nonchalantly, and say that they have no idea where the information
may be. Equally disturbingly it appears that a large number of officers have no
inclination to uncover whether a charge of bribery is true or not. The bribery charge
was made against a Government Officer, and how the information about the enquiry
of this could be with the school is a mystery which none of the officers are able to
explain. The appellant’s representative states that the RTI query has been sent to the
school concerned because the complainant is a teacher in the said school. The only
logical conclusion one can draw from this is that the complainant is to be taught a
lesson by the school. The appellant’s representative said that since the application has
been sent to the school it is resulting in certain pressures on the complainant.
The Commission directs the Director of Education Mr. Chandra Bhushan Kumar to
enquire in this sordid state of affairs, and give a report to the appellant and to the
Commission. This report will be given by the Director of Education before 15th March
2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
25th February 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)