CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001671/8776
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001671
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ajai Vatan
P/o Khasra No. 304/1, Plus Farm,
Holi Chowk, Jaat Mohella,
C/o Dharamvir/ Sunil Store
Neb Sarai Extension, New Delhi – 110068.
Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Kumar
Public Information Officer & SDM-I (HQ)
Government of NCT of Delhi
Revenue Department (Headquarters)
Vigilance Branch,
5,Sham Nath Marg, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 16/09/2009
PIO replied : 09/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 26/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 16/06/2010
Sl Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. While the Appellant was OIC (B&B) from 24/8/98 to No such information is available in
29/6/02, the Appellant had given and diarised the Vigilance Branch to the fact that Mr.
following communications to HOO/HOD:- DK Chittoria had smuggled the copies
A) UO No. PSC/DCJB&B/Audit/98-99/99-2000f47 dated of (a) to (e) stated by the applicant and
30,6.00 addressed to ADM/HQ Dy. No. 2410/ADMHQ dtd consequently no inquiry had been
30/5/00 conducted.
B) First fact report PSR/DC/AGCR-Audit/2000/518 dt.
19.200 Dy. No. 9546/ADM dt. 19.9.00
C) Second Fact Report U.O. No.
PSR1DC/AGCR/Audit/200l/480 dt, 17.9.02 Dy .No.
3269/ADM(HQ) dt. 17.9.01
D) Note dt 15/07/07 in response to SDM – I (HQ) In
charge Vigilance – U.O No. F.6/203/GA/Estt./88/441 dt
09/10/01
E) U.O No. DC/Delhi/AV/Sr.AO/To/2002/884 dt.
09/10/02 Dy. No. 4335/ADM/HQ dt 22/07/02 and Dy. No.
4463/Div. Comm dt. 22/07/2009
2. Almost all the above and other communications were This cannot be replied to at the level
found(Copies) from the residence of Dinesh Kumar of Vigilance Branch as these
Chittoria in house-search conducted by the Anti- documents are not available in
Corruption branch, Delhi Govt, Old Secretariat on Vigilance Branch as per records
Page 1 of 3
30/01/2009. available.
3. In meeting with the then Mr. GK Marwaha, Dy. Pertains to the Vigilance Branch (HQ)
Commissioner on 18/05/04, the above mentioned all
communication given by the appellant were found missing. As per records available in GA, there
Has the DC Office is no such information in this Branch.
A) Conducted an inquiry or investigation as to how the
copies of all (a) to (e) came to be smuggled by DK As per information received from the
Chittoria Tehsildar, HQ, the Dy. No. Letter Dy.
B) Have all the above (a) to (e) were put, seen, marked for No. 2410/ADM/HQ dated 30/06/00,
necessary action by all the named officers given in the No. dated 9545/ADM/HQ dated
column no. 2 of the table, Had n.a taken , filed w/o action 19/09/00, No. 3269/ADM/HQ dated
or what? 17/09/01, No. 4335/ADM/HQ dated
C) Confirm all the Dy. Nos. given in column No. 3 and 22/07/02, and No. 4463/ Div. Com.HQ
safe custody of all the documents, Diary / Dispatch dated 22/07/02 were entered in the
registers, in connection with all the above references. register. (Copy enclosed)
4. This was in continuation with the appellant’s earlier copy No information sought
of reply given in Div. Commissioner’s Office vide Dy. No.
6830 dated 06/08/2009 in response to CS Delhi memo
dated 29/01/2009.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ajai Vatan;
Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Public Information Officer & SDM-I (HQ);
The First Appellate Authority Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui has not passed any order in this matter as
admitted by the PIO. The PIO claims that the FAA had given directions to the PIO. It is a duty of the FAA
to pass reasoned order in the matter. The First Appellate Authority Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui appears to be guilty
of dereliction of duty since he does not appear to have passed any order in the matter.
The First Appellate Authority Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui is directed to present himself before the
Commission with his explanation on 03 August 2010 at 4.00pm to showcause why the Commission
should not recommend disciplinary action against him for dereliction of duty.
The appellant has been given fair amount of information and the PIO has brought further information with
him in the hearing in which he has stated that the communications mentioned by the appellant are not
available on the files. The PIO is directed to send this information to the appellant in writing.
Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before
10 August 2010.
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
30 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
CC:
To,
First Appellate Authority Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui through Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Public Information Officer
& SDM-I (HQ);
Page 3 of 3