Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Surender Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 March, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Surender Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 March, 2009
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                       Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
                     Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
                         New Delhi -110067
                        Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                          Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00519/SG/2446
                                                 Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2008/00519/SG

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                             :       Mr. Surender Kumar,
                                              FM 194/56, Delhi Fire Service,
                                              Fire Station Bhor Garh.

Respondent                            :       The Public Information Officer,
                                              Govt. of NCT of Delhi
                                              Delhi Fire Service,
                                              Connaught lane, New Delhi-110001.

RTI application filed on              :       30/11/2007
PIO replied                           :       Not mentioned
First Appeal filed on                 :       16/01/2008
First Appellate Authority order       :       24/12/2007
Second Appeal filed on                :       18/01/2008

The appellant had asked in his RTI Application about release of salary of the
undersigned w.e.f. November, 2007 as the undersigned is suffering too much
hardship and harassment mentally, physically and economically.

That, “the undersigned is working as Fireman FM194/56 and presently posted at
Bhor Garh Fire Station, Delhi after transfer form Fire Station Teli Wara, Delhi. Provide
Copies of salary to the undersigned giving detail about the circumstances of the
undersigned. If the salary has not been released to the undersigned, it is now also difficult
to the undersigned to attend his duty peacefully because, he is totally out of pocket and it
any incident would be happened in future in his family the over all responsibility will be
on the Department of the D.F.S. Who has not released the salary of the undersigned since
November, 2007 till now? The statement of Account dated 7.1.2008 is attached with RTI
file marked as Annexure: – “B” for your perusal and record.

The PIO replied.

Not mentioned

The First Appellate Authority ordered:

The First Appellate Authority ordered “Vice order dated 30.11.2007 passed by
Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner Govt. of India in Appeal No.
CIC/WB/A/2007/00093 dated 27.01.2007. The appeal has been deposed by Hon’ble CIC
with direction the commission has decide to remand this appeal to Sh. R.C.Sharma Ist
Appellate Authority & Chief Fire Officer who is directed to dispose of the appeal of Sh.
Surender Kumar within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this decision” The
decision has been received on 10.12.2007.

The applicant was directed to present himself on 20.12.2007 and 24.12.2007.
Though notices has been served applicant has not joined the proceedings on 20.12.2007
& 24.12.2007 hence ex party order passed on this remanded RTI case.
Application was signed dated 18.07.2006 but fee was deposited vide GAR 3543 dated
19.07.2006 and same has been received in DFS dairy No.1921 dated 19.07.2006 and ID
No.161 dated 19.07.2007 was given as per RTI register. The ID No. 161 dated
19.07.2006 was replied vide dispatch No.1222 dated from DFS, hence reply of RTI was
in time by PIO.

Reply of RTI by Ist Appellate Authority on perusal of record:

(i) Appellant himself has supplied information. Appellant authority does not
understand what more he had desired. Though there was no need to supply any
thing yet the photocopies of these messages have been supplied.

(ii)    There is no information asked for.
(iii) -Do-
(iv)    -Do-
(v)     Noting portion of File cannot be supplied. Action taken report cannot be supplied

as it relates to IIIrd party information in the Vigilance Files.
Applicant can inspect the files and take the appropriate copies, which ever is not
covered under IIIrd party, and vigilance matter relating to another official. Noting
portion of file cannot be supplied as per DOPT orders”.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Kamal Deep PIO
The file notings of the Vigilance report would have to be given to the appellant.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The PIO will give the copy of the notings of the Vigilance report to the appellant before
10 April 2009

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26 March 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)