CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002165/9471
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002165
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain
H No. T – 335/1, Gali No. 10,
Gautam Puri, New Delhi – 110053.
Respondent : Ms. Renu Popli
Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager (P&SO)
Delhi Transport Corporation
Government of NCT of Delhi
BBM Complex, Delhi- 110009.
RTI application filed on : 09/04/2010 PIO replied : 26/04/2010 First appeal filed on : 21/05/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 23/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 30/07/2010
The appellant had given complaint against Mr.RPS Verma:
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Daily progress Action report on the complaints The inquiry is being conducted against Mr. R P S
mentioned in the application. Date when the Verma (Additional CAO). Until the inquiry is over
actions were taken and the name of the no documents can be provided.
designated officer.
2. The name, details and designation of the officer The inquiry is being done with honesty and
who had to take action on the mentioned transparency. The officers who are conducting
complaints. these inquiries are not guilty and no vigilance
inquiry is going on against any of them currently.
3. The name and details of the culprit found As Above
during the investigation of the complaints.
4. Details and copy of the complaint inquiry As Above
report.
5. In the complaint letter, if the culprit retires by The aim is to finish the inquiry by June 2010.
2010 will the inquiry be finished before that
year in order to punish the culprit or not?
6. The name, post and details of the officer who is No such vigilance inquiry is going on.
conducting the on going culprit inquiry
7. Have the application of the appellant been If the Appellant wants to employ an independent
accepted? If not then why not and if yes then agency to investigate the matter, then he/she should
when will he receive information regarding the go to it directly.
same?
Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO is directed to provide the reply to the relevant points within a week’s time except point 6.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. Renu Popli, Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager (P&SO);
The PIO shows that further information has been provided to the appellant on 02/07/2010 as per
the order of the FAA. Dr. Abhishek Gupta, Financial Advisor and CO had on 28/04/2010 given a report
on the complaint which has also been sent to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
23 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 2 of 2