CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000263/7200
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000263
Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Bharti,
320, Hastshal Village,
Uttamnagar,
New Delhi-110059
Respondent : Dr. K. S. Yadav
Public Information Officer &
Dy. Director of Education (West-A),
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Karampura, New Delhi-110015
RTI application filed on : 22/10/2009
PIO replied : 10/11/2009
First Appeal filed on : 25/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 10/12/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 02/02/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 18/02/2010
Hearing Held on : 18/03/2010
Information sought:
Giving a reference of letter no. 768 & dated 16/10/2009, Appellant sought information vide four
points. After reply of the PIO, he had objection on following points:
2. Certified copy of opinion of Law Deptt. mentioned in report dated 18/05/2009.
3. Certified copy of rules/ regulation under which fresh inquiry on a subject (on which
inquiry had already completed) is done after 3 years of the event.
PIO's Reply:
2. The Law Deptt. opined that the enquiry may not be fair on this ground. On which
competent authority has directed for the fresh enquiry.
3. The competent authority has directed for fresh enquiry after the opinion of the Law
Deptt.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Following documents had not been provided by the PIO
Point no.2.Certified copy of opinion of Law Department.
Point no.3. Certified copy of rules/ regulation under which fresh inquiry
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
PIO was directed to provide a photocopy of the documents desired in Q. no.-2 and also provide
relevant reply to question no. 3 (or photocopy of the desired document (if available) to the
Appellant within 10 days.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Provide correct information in respect of Point no. 2 & 3.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Bharti;
Respondent: Dr. K. S. Yadav, PIO & Dy. Director of Education (West-A);
The PIO has given information but there appears to be some mistake in the wording of
the information provided by him. The law department had stated “in view of the above
discussion it may be stated that the inquiry may not be said to be fair on this ground.” The
Additional Director Act had noted “the law department has opined that a fresh inquiry may be
conducted to meet the end of justice (P 19-22-N).” The PIO on 16/10/2009 has stated “The
competent authority has examined the issue and agrees with the opinion of the law department
that a fresh inquiry be conducted to meet the end of justice.” The PIO admits that there was no
specific opinion of the Law Department ordering a fresh inquiry and that his statement was
erroneous and not based on facts.
The PIO is now directed to provide the Appellant a copy of the provisions by which a fresh
inquiry can be conducted after one inquiry had already been completed. If there are no such
provisions/rules this will be stated.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the Appellant a copy of the provisions by which a fresh
inquiry can be conducted after one inquiry had already been completed. If there are no such
provisions/rules this will be stated. The PIO will provide this information to the Appellant
before 30 March 2010.
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
18 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj