CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001807/9076Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001807
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Pushpa Rani,
ANM (Residential),
Maternity and Child Welfare Centre (MCD),
Guru Ram Dass Nagar,
Delhi- 110092
Respondent : Dr. Sushma Goel,
Public Information Officer & Deputy DHA,
(Health Administration) (M & CW),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (HQ),
18th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
JLN Marg, New Delhi- 110002
RTI application filed on : 23/04/2010
PIO replied : 05/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 12/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 30/06/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Supply me the certified copies of ‘Staff These involve interest of third party (Other staff working
Movements Register’ for the period 1st at Guru Ram Dass Nagar) Mrs. Pushpa Rani ANM, is
January, 2006 to till date. also working as ANM at the same place.
2. Supply me the certified copies of the These are official record of the Centre under charge of
‘Fridge Temperature Records’ for the MOI/C and involve the interest of third party (Other
period starting from 1st January, 2000 to Staff).
till date.
3. Supply me the certified copies of the As above.
"Staff Attendance Register/Signature's
Register' from 1st January, 2009 to till
date.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA.
Page 1 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on August 20, 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Darshan Lal representing Mr. Pushpa Rani;
Respondent: Dr. Sushma Goel, Public Information Officer & Dy. DHA; Dr. Renu Chopra, Additional
DHA & FAA; Dr. Manju Mittal, Deemed PIO & Medical Officer-incharge, Laxmi Nagar;
“The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Dr. Renu Chopra has failed to give any order in the matter.
She contends that she had given a date of hearing but since the appellant did not appear she did not pass
any order. The appellant claims that he had no intimation has been received for the FAA’s hearing. The
Commission warns the FAA that if orders are not issued as required under the RTI Act the Commission
would consider recommending disciplinary actions against her.
The appellant admits that he has received the information sent by the PIO on 01/07/2010. The appellant
states that he feels that the photocopies of page numbers 60, 61, 63, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 93, 100, 102
and 104 of the staff movement register are not complete and the bottom appears to be partial. He feels that
the photocopy of page number 110 of the fridge temperature register is not visible since the attestation
rubber stamp covers some of the data.
The appellant has paid Rs.244/- as additional fee for information which has been supplied late
(after 30 days) to him.”
Decision dated August 20, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to give an inspection to the appellant of the staff movement
register and the fridge temperature register to the appellant on 25 August 2010 at 10.00AM
to verify if any of the information has been cutoff partially. If that is the case fresh attested
photocopies will be provided to the appellant.
The PIO will also refund Rs.244/- additional wrongly charged form the appellant before
02 September 2010.”
Facts leading to hearing held on January 5, 2011:
The Commission received a letter dated 24/11/2010 from the Appellant alleging that the order of the
Commission had not been complied with. In view of the same, the Commission, vide notice dated
06/12/2010 scheduled a hearing in this matter on 05/01/2011 to decide whether there had been non-
compliance of the order of the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on January 5, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Darshan Lal on behalf of the Appellant;
Respondent: Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Dy. DHA and Dr. Manju Mittal, Deemed PIO.
The Commission noted that the additional fee of Rs. 244/- had not been refunded to the Appellant.
Dr. Sushma Goel stated that vide letters dated 30/08/2010, 20/09/2010, 29/09/2010 and 30/12/2010, the
Appellant was requested to submit the original receipt so that refund of the additional fees could be
processed. Mr. Darshal Lal stated that a copy of the original receipt was submitted to the Respondent on
receipt of the letter dated 30/08/2010 itself. Dr. Goel stated that as per the office procedure, payment
could be facilitated only on production of the original receipt. The Commission was not satisfied with the
submissions of Dr. Goel. The Commission, vide its order dated 20/08/2010, had clearly directed Dr. Goel
to refund the additional fees wrongly charged from the Appellant before 02/09/2010, which was not
Page 2 of 4
complied with. The order of the Commission, having the force of law, was required to be complied by the
PIO. Refund of the additional fees could not be denied by the PIO merely on the basis of certain internal/
office procedures.
Further, the Respondents stated that the staff movement registers and the fridge temperature register were
inspected by the Appellant on 25/08/2010 in the presence of Dr. Tiwari, Additional DHA and Mrs.
Mohini, APIO. Duly certified copies of the relevant pages were provided to the Appellant. In this regard,
the Respondents produced notings contained on the same page stating ‘Inspection done by Darshan Lal
and necessary information has been given to him as provided by Deemed PIO’ and ‘Received fresh
certified photocopies of the Pages Nos. 60, 61, 63, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 93, 100, 102, 104 (Staff
Movement Register) and Page No. 110 (Fridge Temperature Register)’ and signed by the concerned
parties.
At the hearing held before the Commission on 20/08/2010, Mr. Darshan Lal had contended that the copies
of page numbers 60, 61, 63, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 93, 100, 102 and 104 of the staff movement register
were not complete and the bottom appeared to be partial. Mr. Darshan Lal had also contended that the
copy of page number 110 of the fridge temperature register was not visible since the attestation rubber
stamp covered some of the data. On this basis, the Commission, vide its order dated 20/08/2010, had
directed that an inspection of the relevant registers be facilitated to the Appellant on 25/08/2010.
However, at the hearing held before the Commission on 05/01/2011, Mr. Darshan Lal contended that no
inspection of the staff movement registers and the fridge temperature register was facilitated to him on
25/08/2010. He alleged that these registers were not being maintained by the Respondent department and
that he was provided certified copies of the attested photocopies of the original registers.
In order to ascertain the veracity of the statements made by both parties, the Commission directed Mr.
Darshal Lal and the Respondents to appear before the Commission once again on January 6, 2011 at
11:00 am. The Respondents were directed to produce the original registers before the Commission on
06/01/2011.
Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on January 6, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Darshan Lal on behalf of the Appellant;
Respondent: Dr. Tiwari, Additional DHA, Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Dy. DHA, Dr. Manju Mittal,
Deemed PIO and Mrs. Mohini, APIO.
“The Respondents produced the staff movement register and the fridge temperature register before
the Commission. Copy of each page provided to Mr. Darshan Lal was cross- checked with the relevant
page of the original register/ attested copy of the original register produced by the Respondents. The
Respondents stated that as per office rules, one of the staff movement registers was weeded out and
therefore only attested copies of the said register was available. The Commission observed that certified
copy of the relevant pages was provided to Mr. Darshan Lal. The Commission further observed that the
certified copies of the relevant pages were complete.
Dr. Tiwari stated that Mr. Darshan Lal had inspected the staff movement registers and the fridge
movement registers on 25/08/2010 in his and Mrs. Mohini’s presence. It is interesting to note that at the
hearing held on 06/01/2011, Mr. Darshan Lal did not allege that the inspection had not been carried out.
The Commission observed that complete information has been provided to the Appellant and that the
order dated 28/08/2010 has been complied with.”
Adjunct Decision announced on January 7, 2011:
“The Commission hereby directs Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Deputy DHA to refund the additional fee of
Rs. 244 to the Appellant before January 24, 2011 and a proof of the same must be sent to the
Commission before January 31, 2011.”
Page 3 of 4
Facts leading to hearing on 27 April 2011:
“The Commission has received letter dated 12/01/2011 along with a letter dated 06/01/2011 from the
Appellant wherein certain concerns in relation to the directions issued by the Commission in its order
dated 07/01/2011 were raised. Therefore, the Commission has decided to schedule a hearing in the instant
matter on April 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm.”
Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on 27 April 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Darshan Lal on behalf of the Appellant;
Respondent: Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Dy. DHA, Dr. Manju Mittal, Deemed PIO & MO Incharge;
The Appellant claims that he did not do an inspection of the relevant records on 25/08/2010. The
Respondents state that the Appellant has inspected the relevant records on 25/08/2010 in the presence of
Dr. H. C. Tiwari-ADHA(MCW Section), Mrs. Mohini APIO, Mr. Hanif Clerk, Dr. Sushma Goel PIO and
Dr. Manju Mittal Deemed PIO. The Appellant states that this is not true. The Respondents have produced
before the Commission a letter from the Appellant Mrs. Pushpa Rani authorizing her husband Mr. Darshal
Lal to inspect the records. On this paper Mr. Darshan Lal has made a note “received fresh certified
photocopies of page nos. 60, 61, 63, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 93, 100, 102, 104 (Staff movement register)
and page no. 110 (fridge temperature register)”. The Appellant claims that the inspection has not been
done on that day. Subsequently he claims he filed complaint before the Commission on 28/09/2010 stating
that the inspection had not been done. He states that he has also given a complaint on 24/11/2010 to the
Commission stating that inspection had not been done. The Commission held hearings on 05/01/2011 and
06/01/2011 and after looking at all the evidence before it came to the conclusion that all the information
had been provided to the Appellant. The Commission also notes that Mr. Darshan Lal did not state on
06/01/2011 that he has not been allowed inspection of the relevant records on 25/08/2010. The
Respondent has stated that as per the weeding out procedure the staff movement registers upto 31/07/2006
was weeded out on 01/11/2010 and therefore is willing to give an inspection of the register from August
2006 onwards and is able to produce only the photocopies of the earlier records. The Appellant alleges
that the PIO should not have destroyed the records since he had filed an appeal about this. The PIO states
that the records were held by the Deemed PIO and were weeded out as per the weeding out procedure.
The Appellant alleges that the photocopies of the staff movement register provided to him for the period
January to July 2006 have been tampered on page no. 100, 102 & 104. He points out that the last entry on
page no. 100 & 102 is identical. The Commission asked the Appellant whether he could point out any
specific reason for the PIO to forge these records. He is not able to give any rational explanation to the
Commission to support his contention. The Appellant is also objecting to the fact that some of the
submission on 05/01/2011 and 06/01/2011 had been taken by the Legal Consultant of the Commission.
The Commissioner has authorized the Legal Consultant to take the submission and go through the details
and papers on behalf of the Commissioner. Considering all the factors before the Commission the
Commission comes to the conclusion that all information available has been appropriately provided to the
Appellant and the matter is now completely closed.
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 the RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 4 of 4