CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001514/13632
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001514
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. P. K. Pandey,
Director Professor of Ophthalmology,
GNEC, MAMC,
Delhi- 110091
Respondent : Mr. Amar Singh
Deemed PIO & AO (Administration)
Maulana Azad Medical College,
G.N.C.T Delhi,
2- Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
Vigilance Cell,
New Delhi- 110002.
RTI application filed on : 22/10/2010
PIO replied on : 19/01/2011
First Appeal filed on : 09/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : 08/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 07/06/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of PIO
1. Are GNEC/MAMC Govt. institutions that follow statute MAMC being under Delhi Govt. follow
including rules framed under Article 309 of the the rules/guidelines of Govt. of India as
Constitution of India and conduct themselves as per endorsed by GNCTD.
those rules GOL/MCI guidelines?
2. Do these statutory rules/ GOI/MCI guidelines apply to Yes
all Govt. employees at GNEC/MAMC?
3. Inform about the actions taken on his representations and This matter is still under investigation.
reminders dated 22/7/10, 3/9/10, 18/10/10, 8/11/10, Therefore the investigation cannot be
18/11/10, 2/12/10 and 14/12/10 by GNEC and MAMC provided under Section 8 1 (H) of RTI
admin till now. Act, 2005.
4. Inspection of file noting, related documents shall be In view if (iii) above, information
provided to him made in response to above cannot be provided.
communication.
5. Provide the photocopies of the reply submitted by Dr. In view if (iii) above, information
Dadeya to Director GNEC'S memo on 25/10/10.the file cannot be provided
noting and decision shall also be provided.
6. Are these representations reminder decided as per All the decisions are made as per the existing
statutory rules and replied within a month of stipulated rules. However the rules quoted in the enclosure
are for representation from Govt. servants on
time under conduct? service matters and the representation are
complaint of RTI applicant therefore does not
cover under the relevant quoted rules.
7. If reply of point vi is yes why hasn't he received any The reply for 'why' cannot be given.
reply in 6 months?
8. Is it the policy at GNEC and MAMC to obey GOI orders In view of vii reply cannot be given.
including one dated 31/08/10 to SAG grade? If yes then
why letter dated 9/7/10 has not been treated as invalid
sui-generis, as it contravenes promotion order quoted
above passed by the AGG and effective from 29/10/08
9. Is it the policy at GNEC/MAMC to act as per the As for the complaint/counter
statutory rules and are GNEC and MAMC acting as per complaint/against the RTI applicant Dr.
the conduct and taking actions to institute conduct and Dadeya is concerned, this office has
conclude an inquiry as per CCS CCA conduct rules to already processed and is conducting the
inquire into grave acts of misconduct from Dr. Dadeya requisite inquiry in the matter. Further
as elaborated in above representations and reminders and Dr.Dadeya has been called at the level
shift him immediately to another unit pending conduct of of Dean MAMC to resolve the issue few
inquiry. times in the past.
10 If GNEC and MAMC are not able to act as per the Since this matter is still under process.
. statutory rules, is it a policy to forward such info to Therefore the info cannot be provided
higher authorities? If yes then what action has been as per Section 8.1 (H) of RTI guidelines.
taken in the matter till now? Photocopy of records.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information denied by the SPIO on point iii, v-x invoking section 8 I (H) of RTI Act 2005.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
A.O (Vigilance) was directed to send all the representations received from both the parties to the
Director (GNEC).
He is also directed to provide certified photocopies of documents noting as asked by the Appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
PIO did not provide information in spite of the FAA's order.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Dr. P. K. Pandey;
Respondent: Mr. Amar Singh, Deemed PIO & AO (Administration); Dr. Subhash Dadeya, Professor;
The PIO appears to have provided all the information available on the records to the Appellant.
The Appellant admits that he has been shown the relevant files. The appellant expects that reasons
should be given why action has not been taken on his representations. If the Appellant claims that as
per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act the reasons for action must be intimated to him. Under the RTI Act
the PIO is expected to provide the reasons on record and cannot be expected to generate information
by asking various people to give the reasons for various actions. The intent of Section 4(1)(d) is clearly
that whenever actions are taken which affect the large number of people the public authority is duty
bound to explain such actions. The Appellant says he would like to inspect the relevant records.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on
03 August 2011 from 11.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file
which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to
the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that
such files/records do not exist.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the
Appellant on 03 August 2011 from 11.30AM onwards. The PIO will give attested
photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
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
25 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RU)