CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000975/3703
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000975
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar
MIGH-349, P.C.Colony, Karkarbagh
P.S.-Kankarbagh, Distt. Patna (Bihar).
Respondent : The PIO (RSD)
Indira Gandhi National Open University
(IGNOU), Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi-110068.
RTI application filed on : 02/12/2008 PIO replied : Not mentioned First appeal filed on : 15/01/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 18/03/2009 Second Appeal received on : 23/04/2009 Information sought:
The appellant has sought information that his services was a PIC under RSD Division,
Kindly provide documents regarding in what basis Dr.Srikant Mohapatra RSE putted following
information in confidential letter 7194 dt. 20.06.08 to Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor:
(i) Period during which I worked as DPE Consultant.
(ii) Joining report of DPE Consultant.
(iii) Discontinuation letter of DPE Consultant.
(iv) Copy of charges and irregularities leveled as a DPE Consultant.
PIO’s reply:
Not mentioned.
The First Appellate Authority’s Order:
First appellate authority ordered on 18/03/2009 asked Dr. R.Chandra Regional Director IGNOU
regional centre, Patna to provide the requisite information to the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Arvind Kumar
Respondent: Absent
The appellant states that in a note sheet put up by Dr.Srikant Mohapatra, Registrar(SRE) on
20/06/2008 he had stated that “it was also further understood that Mr.Arvind Kumar was earlier
working as Consultant for DPE Program in spite of the fact that several charges of irregularities
were leveled against him for which proceedings are pending. Subsequently, the services of Mr.
Arvind Kumar as consultant at the RC, Patna have been discontinued with the intervention of the
VC.” The appellant states that he was never worked as consultant for DPE Program and was
seeking information about when he was working as per the records. He was seeking to exonerate
himself. It is curious that no information has been provided to him by the PIO and also by Mr.
Masood Parveez, Director RSD and Dr. Srikant Mohapatra. It appears from all these that the
appellant’s contention that he was never appointed as Consultant for DPE Program may be
correct. It is necessary that if it is true he should be given a letter stating that he was never
appointed as Consultant for DPE Program. If however he was appointed he should be given
information regarding his appointment.
In view of these unusual circumstances of this case the VC-IGNOU is directed to provide
information to the appellant on this matter.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Vice Chancellor IGNOU is directed to provide the information to the appellant and the
Commission before 05 July 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
AK
CC:
Prof. V.N.Rajshekhran Pillai
Vice Chancellor IGNOU
Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi – 110068