CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000691/11315
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000691
Relevant Factsemerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Dharampal Singh Dahiya
H. No. 338/31, Gali No.2,
(Sher Singh wali Gali), Ghana Road,
Ashok Vihar, Sonepat-131001 (HR).
Respondent : Mr. Ashish Upadhyaya
Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer
UGC-DAE Consortium for Scientific Research,
University Campus, Khandwa Road,
Indore-452001 (M.P.)
RTI application filed on : 23/09/2009
PIO replied : 26/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 03/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 02/12/2009
Notice of Hearing sent on : 27/12/2010
Hearing held on : 05/02/2011
Information Sought:
The Appellant sought information on 20 points regarding copy of rules/law under which the payment of `Â
193500/- related to one 100 KV DG set could be paid, date of receipt of letter dated 26/03/1998 alongwith
remarks given by Director IUC-DAEF, date of qualifying of Mr. S S Narayan and rules under which he
was eligible to get the payscale of `. 2000-3500, copy of disciplinary rules under which employees could
be removed from the post, details of post retirement benefits given to Mr. A K Srivastava along with copy
of all relevant documents in this regard, attested copy of service book of Mr. Mahesh Gupta (A.O-II), last
date of receiving the application for the post of Accounts Officers-I which was advertised on 14/02/1991,
name of appropriate Appellate Authority, copy of proof of application filed by the Appellant on
12/05/2009 and the reply was sent on 13/07/2009, attested copy of the circular/order for meeting of the
selection committee held after 03/10/1998 for the discussion of appointment of Mr. S. S. Narayanan,
attested copy of rules/bye laws under which the Centre Director could tamper/alter the attendance register,
attested copy of apology letter as mentioned in the Appellant’s ACR, copy of rules/bye-laws of IUC-
DAEF according to which any scientist of IUC-DAEF could come late, copy of rules/bye-laws of office
decorum, code of conduct, copy of rule/bye-laws under which the authorized signatory could not be held
responsible for the making mistakes, copy of rule under which forgery could be established on the
medical claim, copy of the rules/bye-laws under which Dr. P S Goyal being an initiating officer could
recommend the termination of the Appellant’s service copy of the order/rule under which the UGC-DAE-
CSR granted an adhoc pay in P.B.4 to Mr. Mahesh Chander Gupta, A.O inspite of his clear order.
Reply of the PIO:
The query raised in the RTI Application was mostly argument in nature. The related information was
already made available. Under the RTI Act, only such information was required to be supplied under the
Act which already exists and was held by the public authority or held under the control of the public
authority. The PIO was not supposed to interpret or clarify any rule/order/action. RTI Act was not a
grievance redressal mechanism. The IPO of ` 50 was returned to the Appellant however, he was
suggested to come to the office to see the relevant records and to get a copy of the records concerning to
you.
First Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
“1. As per your desire a complete copy of the Bye-Laws & Service Conditions was supplied to you;
nothing rests undelivered under RTI Act. Your wishes don’t make the Bye-Laws & Service Conditions,
2. Nothing has been demanded by this (para 2) of your appeal.
3. The complete Bye-Laws & Service Conditions has been supplied to you. If you want to inspect the
supplied Bye-Laws & Service Conditions, you are welcome.
4. We have supplied all the documents and not harassed, hence further action is not warranted.
5. You have made allegations, in this para, against the past and present officers of this Consortium. This is
not allowed under RTI Act. Please mind in future to write such unwarranted things. If you need further
information (not the one which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual, or which cannot be given under RTI Act) please
approach the concerned PlO in place of the Appellate authority.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO and the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Dharampal Singh Dahiya;
Respondent : Mr. Ashish Upadhyaya, Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer;
The PIO has provided considerable information but is now directed to provide the following;
1- Query-2: Copy of the letter dated 26/03/1998 of Mr. S. S. Narayan.
2- Query-14: Copy of the apology and leave application.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on the two points directed above to
the Appellant before 25 February 2011.
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
05 February 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)