CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00942/1231
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00942
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Brahm Dutt,
House No. 598,
Sector -21-A,
Faridabad -121001.
Respondent 1 : Rashmi Singh,
Jt. Director (Vig.) & SPIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Deptt. of Women & Child Development
1-Canning Lane, K.G.Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 20/12/2007 PIO replied : 04/03/2008 First appeal filed on : 27/02/2008 First Appellate Authority order : not replied Second Appeal filed on : 09/04/2008
The appellant had asked in RTI application regarding ‘Rampant corruption in the
department of social welfare of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi’.
Detail of required information:-
S. No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.
1. Whether Chief Secretary being head of The Chief Secretary has given sanction
the Govt. of Delhi finds merit in the for prosecution against two officers of
complaint for passing order for an the Department.
inquiry?
2. If yes, whether Chief Secretary can No such information on record.
ensure that an impartial and
independent inquiry is conducted as it
is quite evident that senior level officer
up to the rank of Joint Director is
certainly involve in the whole affair?
3. What action would be taken against the An enquiry into the purchased made in
officers of the Beggan homes situated 1997-98 relates toICDS, Beggars
at Tahir Pur and Lampur whose Home at Lampur and Tahirpur, has
quotations were found to be fake for the been ordered by the Deptt. to be
year 2004-05 and 2005-06? completed in a stipulated time frame.
The committee comprises of four
officers from the Deptt.
4. What action would be taken against Regarding documents for purchases in
three officers who prepared two fake RCC, the Vigilance branch informed
sets of documents for purchase for the that there was no such complaint
same home RCC on the same date i.e. received by them.
15/05/2006?
5. Where the complaint is is pending As already mentioned in ( C ) above,
presently and why the same is not an enquiry has been set up and action
processed till date, which officer is would be initiated in accordance with
responsible for inaction? the finding of the committee.
The First Appellate Authority ordered: –
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Brahm Dutt
Respondent: Mr. B.R. Singh PIO
From the information before the Commission it appears that the information has been
provided. However the information has been provided very late. The PIO is warned to
ensure that information is given on time to avoid the penal provisions of the RTI act.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
January 22, 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)