Mr. A.K. Sharma vs Dept. Of Secondary Education & … on 20 October, 2008

          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                                                Appeal No.2929/ICPB/2008
                                                               F. No. CIC/OK/C/2008/00496
                                                                          October 20, 2008

             In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
                              [Hearing on 01.10.2008 at 3.30 p.m.]


Appellant:          Mr. A.K. Sharma

Public authority:   Dept. of Secondary Education & Library
                    Mr. V. Jaya Chandraw, PIO

Parties Present:    For Respondent:

Mr. V. Jaya Chandraw, PIO
Mr. Rajender Parkash

This appeal came on transfer from another Bench of the Commission on
the request of the appellant for change of Bench and accordingly it was taken up
for hearing on 01.10.2008, which was attended by the following people from
Department of School Education:

Mr. V.Jayachandran
Mr. Rajender Parkash

The appellant has also attended the hearing in person.

In this particular case, the appellant is requesting information pertaining to
third party from the CPIO, Department of School Education & Library. Though
the third party is a public functionary against whom charge-sheet has been
issued and penalty has also been given the appellant is not entitled for this
information. However, this information has been given belatedly after a period of
two months. When the information has been given by the CPIO even when it is
not necessary it is expected he should give the complete information. The
appellant has pointed out during the hearing the charge sheet has not been
accompanied by Annexure-4 and he has requested for this Annexure-4 to be
given to him. In case if any Annexure-4 is available with this charge-sheet, it is
directed it should be given to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt
of this decision. Moreover, in this case, there was a delay of more than 30 days
while giving reply. The present CPIO has stated during the hearing this is
pertaining to the earlier period and there was no mention in the file about the

1
delay. This paper has been retrieved from the old records probably this could be
the reason for giving information belatedly. Whenever records are not available
immediately CPIO should have given an interim reply so that the appellant will be
convinced that he will get reply in due course. This should be followed very
strictly in future. Apart from this it is once again reiterated both the CPIOs and
AAs are designated officers under RTI Act and they have to work according to
the time-frame given in the Act and this should be very strictly observed in future.
On these lines, this appeal is disposed of.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.

Sd/-

(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :

(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar

Address of parties :

1. Mr. V. Jaya Chandraw, PIO, Department of Secondary Education &
Library, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001

2. Mr. A.K. Sharma, B-201, Palam Extension, Part-I, Sector-7, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110077

2