Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 4337/IC(A)/2009
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2009/00555
Dated, the 1st September, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vanimisetti Gopalam
Name of the Public Authority : National Institute of Rural Development
1
Facts
:
1. Shri Anish Gandhi, a social worker, sent the following e-mail to the DG,
NIRD, Shri B.K. Sinha on 25.05.2008, in response to which he was appointed as
Advisor to NIRD vide order no. 460 dated 18.8.2008:
“Dear Sir,
Please find attached my Bio Data. I would like to be associated with NIRD
in any capacity/assignment as you think I will best suited for.
I would like to work for the institute in a token salary of Re. 1 with only
TA/DA as applicable. Since I am based at New Delhi. I would request you
to station the undersigned in Delhi with appropriate office space.
I assure you of my best services at all times.
Regards,
Anish Gandhi,
E-9/24, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110057.
Mob: 9810015480.”
2. In this regard, the appellant asked for the following information through his
application dated 24.11.2008:
If you don’t ask, you don’t get – Mahatma Gandhi
1
i) Copy of the advertisement issued for the post (with details of pay scale
etc.) against which Shri Anish Gandhi was appointed.
ii) Copy of the application submitted by Shri Anish Gandhi for the post in
NIRD together the details of IPO/DD towards application fee submitted.
iii) List of short listed candidates for the post.
iv) Details of the selection committee constituted for
selection/recommendations of the candidates for the post.
v) Details of written test/interview if any conducted and details of candidates
who appeared for the test/interview.
vi) A copy of the minutes of the selection committee recommending his name
of the post.
vii) Details of the competent authority who had approved his appointment in
NIRD.
viii)A copy of the offer of appointment issued to Shri Anish Gandhi.
ix) If the appointment is on contract basis, a copy of the contract agreement
executed by him in favour of NIRD.
3. In his complaint before the Commission, the appellant has alleged that the
PIO has neither responded to his RTI application nor complied with the Appellate
Authority’s orders. During the hearing, the appellant made the following
averments:
• The appellant submitted his 1st appeal on 7.1.2009, as he hid not receive
CPIO’s response to his RTI application dated 24.11.2008.
• Even the Appellate Authority’s order dated 23.1.2009 and 27.4.2009, were
ignored by the CPIO.
• The CPIO replied on 10.6.2009, after a complaint was submitted to
Central Information Commission, in which it was stated that a reply, as
under, was sent vide letter dated 24.12.2008;
“No. Admn. A/A5/2009/RTI/PIO/9
December 24, 2008
To
Shri V. Gopalam,
H.No. 6-3-596/63/7, Naveennagar,
Khairatabad,
Hyderabad-500004.
2
Sir,
Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005- reg.
Ref: Your application dt. 24.11.2008
With reference to your application cited above, information as available is
furnished below:
Sl. No. Information sought Information available
1. Copy of the advertisement issued There was no advertisement
for the post (with details of pay issued as the post is not a
scale etc.) against which Shri sanctioned post.
Anish Gandhi was appointed.
2. Copy of the application submitted Enclosed
by Shri Anish Gandhi for the post
in NIRD together the details of
IPO/DD towards application fee
submitted.
3. List of short listed candidates for Since the post was not
the post. advertised, the question of short
listing of candidates does not
arise.
4. Details of the selection committee In view of the reply at Sl. No. 1
constituted for above, it is not applicable.
selection/recommendations of the
candidates for the post.
5. Details of written test/interview if Same reply as at Sl. No. 4
any conducted and details of
candidates who appeared for the
test/interview.
6. A copy of the minutes of the In view of the reply at Sl. No. 1,
selection committee it is not applicable
recommending his name of the
post.
7. Details of the competent authority Directore General
who had approved his appointment
in NIRD.
8. A copy of the offer of appointment Enclosed
issued to Shri Anish Gandhi.
9. If the appointment is on contract Since this is not a contract
3
basis, a copy of the contract appointment, copy of the
agreement executed by him in contract agreement is not
favour of NIRD. available.
Yours faithfully,
Public Information Officer
Encl: As above.”
4. The appellant stated that the above letter, purported to have been sent to
the appellant, is an after thought creation of PIO. If the above mentioned letter
was issued, why was it not supplied to the appellant when the Appellate Authority
of the respondent Shri K. Niranjan Rao, Director (FM) & FA ordered for providing
the information vide his two letters, mentioned above.
5. In view of foregoing, the appellant alleged that:
(i) the respondent has committed grave irregularities in appointment of
Advisor as the principles of natural justice have been violated by depriving
of opportunities of appointment to other eligible persons;
(ii) the PIO has not only violated the provisions of the Act as she did not
respond for over six months but also lied that the information was
furnished on 24.11.08;
(iii) the PIO did not comply with the orders of the Appellate Authority and
therefore the appellant was constrained to submit his complaint to Central
Information Commission;
(iv) though the Advisor to NIRD has been appointed on a monthly salary of Re
1/- p.m., a huge amount of money, over Rupees fifty thousand per month
was paid under different heads to the Advisor, in question, who does not
possess requisite professional experience to promote the mandate of the
respondent; and
(v) the information furnished to him is incomplete and misleading. He
therefore pleaded for imposition of penalty u/s 20 (1) of the Act and award
of monetary compensation for unnecessary harassment in the matter of
accessing information relating corrupt practices of the respondent.
6. In her written submission dated August 24, 2009, the PIO Ms.
Dhanlakshmi, Registrar & Director (Admn.) has stated that;
4
(i) the RTI application dated 24.11.2008 was replied on 24.12.2008 and
complete information was furnished; and
(ii) the appellant, an ex-employee, is a habitual litigant, who has so far
submitted over 50 RTI applications on different issues, all of which have
been replied and required information were furnished.
Decision:
7. In his complaint before the Commission, the appellant has alleged about
the non- compliance of the orders dated 23.1.2009 and 27.4.2009, passed by
Shri K. Niranjan Rao, Appellate Authority of the respondent, who had directed the
PIO to furnish the information. The question is: Why did the Appellate Authority
repeatedly aske the PIO to furnish the information, if it was provided vide letter
24.12.08, as contended by the PIO in her submission before the Commission.
Clearly, there is either some communication gap between PIO and Appellate
Authority of the respondent or the requested information was not furnished, as
alleged by the appellant, till he took up the matter with the Commission. We are
therefore of the view that PIO has created the response dated 24.12.08 as an
after thought for her defence. This is also corroborated from the fact that the PIO
has not offered any comment on the alleged non-compliance of Appellate
Authority’s orders. If a timely response to the appellant was given, the same
should have been reflected in the orders by Appellate Authority and the
comments submitted by the PIO to the Commission. We therefore conclude that
the PIO’s purported response of dated 24.12.09 was prepared and sent, after the
appellant approached this Commission. In view of this, the PIO, Ms.
Dhanlakshmi is held responsible for violation of section 7 (1) of the Act, as she
did not furnish the information within the stipulated period of thirty days. She also
ignored the two directions passed by the Appellate Authority and has thus shown
lackadaisical attitude towards the implementation of the provisions of the Act. It is
also inferred that since the issue raised by the appellant pertain to alleged
irregularities in appointment of Advisor, including misuse of discretionary powers
by the competent authority, the PIO has malafiedly denied the information to
5
maintain secrecy in the appointment, in question. The PIO, Ms. Dhanlakshmi is
therefore directed to show cause as to why a maximum amount of Rs. 25,000/-
should not be imposed on her as penalty u/s 20 (1) of the Act for inordinate delay
in supply of information. She should submit her explanation at the earliest and
also appear for a personal hearing on September 29, 2009 at 12.30 pm., failing
which penalty would be imposed.
8. The appellant has pursued the matter through several letters and
reminders and approach this Commission also. He appeared for hearing on
27.08.2009 while the PIO made a written submission, which could have been
avoided, had the Appellate Authority’s orders were complied with or the PIO had
sent a timely response. He has surely suffered all kinds of losses-time and
resources, in pursuing the matter with the respondent, with a sole objective of
exposing corrupt practices in appointment of Advisor and alleged mis-use of
public funds to extend favour to a person. The Director General of the
respondent, or his nominee, should explain as to why an amount of Rs. 25,000/-
should not be awarded as compensation u/s 19 (8) (b) of the Act for the
detriment suffered by the appellant due to deemed refusal of information and
consequent harassments by the officials of the respondent. The Director General
or his nominee, should also appear for a personal hearing on the date and time
indicated above, failing which compensation would be awarded. The appellant
may also be present.
9. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
6
Name and address of parties: 2
1. Shri Vanimisetti Gopalam, H.No. 6-3-596/63/7, Naveen Nagar,
Khairathabad, Hyderabad-500004.
2. Ms. Dhanlakshmi, Assistant Registrar(T) & PIO, National Institute of Rural
Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030.
3. Shri K. Niranjan Rao, Director (FM) & FA & Appellate Authority, National
Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030.
4. The Director General, National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030.
All men by nature desire to know – Aristotle
7