Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.O.P.Singhal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 2 May, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.O.P.Singhal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 2 May, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                        Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000507/12221
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000507

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :     Mr. Om Prakash Singhal
                                           House No - 61, Hari Nagar
                                           Ashram,Mathura Road
                                           New Delhi - 110014

Respondent                           :     Ms. Seema Sharma
                                           PIO & Assistant Director
                                           Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                           Education Department
                                           Shahdar South Zone, Karkardooma
                                           Zonal Office Building
                                           Shahdara,Delhi

RTI application filed on             :     13/09/2010
PIO replied on                       :     28/10/2010
First Appeal filed on                :     26/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order of   :     29/11/2010
Second Appeal received on            :     25/02/2011

Sl.   Information Sought                            Reply of PIO
1.    File related to repayment of Rs. 5780/- had Matters related to health and fitness of the
      apparently been misplaced. Provide Dispatch employees is tried to be disposed off at the
      No and Date of the file.                      earliest
2.    Provide Photo copy. As the file has been lost Can be obtained after payment of minimum fees.
      in this office, will the office pay
      compensation of Rs.5780/-?
3.    Some employees of the corporation The photocopy can be obtained after submitting
      purposefully misplace the Service booklet of application and some fees.
      Employees why they refuse to bribe them.
      Will a photocopy of Smt. Vanita Gupta`s
      service Booklet be provided
4.    Are files forwarded without the D.E.O`s Wherever such errors are detected, they are duly
      signature to purposefully delay their corrected.
      clearance?
5.    What is the average duration within which There is no standard time; it depends on the
      the claims for medical reimbursement are existing workload
      forwarded to the regional Office?
6.    As per rule , employees who cause delay are All complaints are enquired into and if any guilt is
      subjected to some proceedings. Till date, shown , necessary proceedings are carried on.
      against how many employees and for what
      reasons have proceedings been carried on?
7.    Bs. y what date with the amount , Rs. 5780/- Necessary procedure to provided photocopy of the
      be reimbursed?                                file has been initiated.
Note: The appellant wrote back to the PIO asking specific clarification with respect to each of
the queries. The PIO replied to these.
 Grounds for the First Appeal:
No answer was received.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA found the information to be satisfactory. The appellant was requested to present his
grievance separately to the department for redressal.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
The file hasn't been shown even after hearing before the FAA.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

Appellant: Mr. Om Prakash Singhal;

Respondent: Ms. Seema Sharma, PIO & Assistant Director; Mr. Anil Kumar, School Inspector;

The Appellant has been given most of the information as admitted by him. The matter of
dissatisfaction of the appellant is that a medical bill for reimbursement had been given by his
daughter-in-law of Rs.5780/-. There is evidence that on 19/06/2007 the file relating to this was
received from CAMO Shahdara South and marked to the then AEO Mr. Diwan Chand. After
this there is no evidence of the file movement and the file is claimed to have been stolen/lost.
Since this file has been stolen/lost the medical reimbursement has not been made.

The Commission directs Additional Commissioner (Education & Health) to look into this and if the
file has indeed been stolen/lost a police complaint must be filed regarding this mentioning the name of
officers who last handled the file. The Commission also requests the Additional Commissioner
(Education & Health) to see if there is some way in which the medical reimbursement is made if
eligible.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The Commission directs Additional Commissioner (Education and Health) to
ensure that a police complaint as directed above is filed and a copy sent to the Appellant
and the Commission before 15 June 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
02 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)

CC:

To,

Additional Commissioner
(Education and Health)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Dr. SPM Civic Center,
5th Floor, Minto Road,
New Delhi