CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/01104//SG/0645
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/01104/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Yogesh Kumar Goyal,
House No. 984,
Sector 7-C,
Faridabad, Hariyana.
Respondent 1 : Prof. Rocket Ibrahim,
PIO,
Jamia Milla Islamia,
Maulana Mohd. Ali Jauhar Marg,
New Delhi - 110025.
RTI filed on : 05/12/2007
PIO replied : 26/12/2007
First appeal filed on : 30/04/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 07/05/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 26/07/2008
The appellant had asked about provide action taken report against Mr. K. L.
Kaushik, form the Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi
Detail of required information:-
Mr. K.L.Kaushik Lecturer in Mathematics Aggarwal College Ballabgarh Committed
gross irregularities during the period of fellowship as per rules vide your letter no. F.
R. RTI -2007, dated 22nd May, 2007(letter attached), but he ded so. He also did all
the works of financial benefits during the period. I have already requested you to take
necessary action in this regard vide my letter dated 06/06/2007, in public interest.
I request your goodself to let me know the action taken in this regard at your earliest.
The PIO replied:
We are in the process of gathering the desired information and send you the same at
the earliest.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“This has reference to your letter dated 30/04/2008 seeking information under RTI
Act, 2005. In this connection, we hereby inform you that the PIO, JMI has sent you
all the relevant information / replies to your letters, which you have your enclosed
along with the above said letter.
Now, no further action is required on the part of the University in the case of Mr.
K.L.Kaushik.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant : Dr. Yogesh Kumar Goyal
Respondent : Prof. Mini Thomas representing Prof. Rocket Ibrahim, PIO
The PIO contends that no action has been taken on the appellant’s complaint.
The appellant points out that this simple answer has not been provided to him
categorically. The PIO must state this explicitly.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will either give details of action taken on the complaint or give a
categorical statement that no action has been taken. The information will
be provided to the appellant before 26 December, 2008.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19th December, 2008
(For any further correspondence please mention the decision number given above,
for quick disposal.)