CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000372/3137
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000372
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mahender Kumar
R/o 3409, Mahendra Park,
Delhi - 110034
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Vigilance Department,
16, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines,
New Delhi- 110054
RTI application filed on : 09/07/2008
PIO replied : 08/08/2008
First Appeal filed on : 11/11/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 11/12/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 09/03/2009
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought certain information from PIO, Vigilance Department, MCD,
New Delhi in respect of Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, LDC appointed by Central Establishment
Department. The appellant through his queries asked Mr. Rajesh Sehgal’s service book, his leave
records, copies of various orders passed related to Mr. Rajesh Sehgal etc…..
The PIO replied.
The PIO informed to the appellant that one of the complaints was investigated by the
Vigilance Department. He also requested appellant to furnish complete details of other complaint
numbers so that complete information can be supplied.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The First Appellate authority ordered that “The appellant stated that he is not satisfied
with the information provided by the PIO/CED. I have perused the record & found that the
information supplied by the PIO(CED) is not complete and the PIO(CED) and the
Administrative Officers concerned of CED are hereby directed that whatever information is
available be made available to the appellant within fifteen working days positively. Still he may
be asked to inspect the relevant record, if he so wishes.”
With these directions the FAA disposed off the appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Mahender Kumar
Respondent : Mr. Ravinder Kumar PIO
The information has not been provided and the officials are again displaying its classic ‘passing
the paper’ game. Even the order of the First appellate authority has not been implemented.
The appellant states that the copy of the service book is with the vigilance department, and the
original is with the GPF Section at Townhall, where Mr. Rajesh Sehgal is working.
The Commission directs Mr. A.M. Muthu Vigilance to locate the duplicate service book and give
a copy to the appellant.
The Commission also directs PIO, GPF Section also to give a copy of the service book to the
appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
Mr. A.M. Muthu and PIO, GPF Section will give the information as ordered above to the
appellant before 30 May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
May 08, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(RM)