CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001888/9059
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001888
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. R. D. Sharma
251-D, J&K,
Dilshad Garden,
New Delhi-110095
Respondent 1) : Mr. Anil Gupta
Public Information Officer& Administrative Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Establishment Department
Town Hall, Chandini Chowk
New Delhi-110006
2) : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
RP Cell
Town Hall, Chandini Chowk
New Delhi-110006
3) : Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj
Public Information Officer & Commercial Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Advertisement Department
206, Nigam Bhawan,
Kashmere Gate, New Delhi
4) : Mr. Ved Prakash
Public Information Officer &
Administrative Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Najafgarh Zone
Near water tank building,
Tilak Nagar road, new delhi
RTI application filed on : 02/03/2010
PIO replied : 10/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 15/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : No Reply
Second Appeal received on : 07/07/2010
Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding –
1. Provide the daily action taken report by the C.V.O on the complaint made to the C.V.O/M.C.D
dated 04.01.10. against the unauthorized clerk/Inspector in Advertisement Dept. of M.C.D.
Page 1 of 3
2. The complaint was submitted to the commissioner M.C.D , DP/CED, Mayor & C.I .WO /DC(L)
M.C.D. Provide the daily action report taken by the them.
3. Mention the names of the officials in the CVO and other Depts. who were handed over the
complaint letter along with the no. of days the officials possessed the complaint letter.
4. provide copies of the orders/circulars describing the roles/duties of C.V.O/M.C.D in complaints of
illegal postings of clerks/inspectors in the sensitive Depts. Like Advertisement.
5. What action shall be taken against the official who is responsible for the illegal posting of
Yadhuveer Singh into Advertisement Dept. for years?
6. Give copies of orders of Yadhuveer Singh’s posting in the Advertisement Dept and along with the
reasons as to why hasn’t he been removed?
7. What action shall be taken against the A.D.C/R.P Cell, A.D.C/O.S.D Advertisement, Shri. B.N
Singh for the above mentioned point?
8. Provide names of all the employees ion the vigilance Dept alongwith the period spent by them in
that Dept. & also give the date of joining in each Dept. regarding each employee.
9. Please provide in CD,the names of the employees having pending vigilance cases against them in
the present and last years. Names of all whose enquiry is pending and R.D.A No. has not been
allotted and also the names of all those who are or have faced enquiry in the CBI or any other
Dept.
10. Present posting places along with the date of posting of all the people mentioned in point no. 9 be
given.
11. Give details of R.D.A against Ram Kumar Sharma A.E & Mr. R.K. Bansal & Rakesh working in
the south zone of M.C.D along with the copy of charge sheets & decision orders all of them
received in their entire services?
12. Inspection of record be allowed and certified copies of the record be given.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
The application dated 03.03.10 and the same was transferred from Vigilance Dept., MCD vide no. PIO
(Vig)/CRiA/HC/2412/2010/1168 dated 10.03.2010 and was received in the Advertisement Dept. on
11.03.2010 (ID No. 250).And it was said that the point nos. 1-4 pertained to respective depts.
Answers to point no. 5& 6 has been provided to the appellant in RTI ID No.172 10.06.2009
Points 7-12 doesn’t pertain to the Advertisement Dept.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete & unsatisfactory information was provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No Reply.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information was provided by the PIO & no reply was given by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent(1): Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, AO on behalf of Mr. Anil Gupta, PIO & AO (CED Town Hall);
Respondent(2): Absent;
Respondent(3): Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, PIO & CO (Advertisement Department) Kashmere Gate;
Respondent(4): Mr. Ved Prakash, PIO & Administrative Officer (Nazafgarh Zone);
All the respondents present states that the information sought by the appellant should be with the
Vigilance Department. The application was originally filed on 02/03/2010 with the Vigilance Department
and on 10/03/2010 Mr. S. P. Sharma, Asstt. Director Vigilance and PIO has transferred the RTI
application to different departments. According to the statement of the respondents present the PIO Mr. S.
Page 2 of 3
P. Sharma should have had the information and he unnecessarily transferred the RTI Application. If the
statements of the respondent present are to be believed the PIO Vigilance has actated in completely
irresponsible manner since he unnecessarily transferred the RTI application which has no relation to the
queries of the appellant. The Commission will consider compensating the appellant for unnecessary
harassment by PIO Vigilance.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs PIO Vigilance to provide complete information to the
appellant before 10 September 2010
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 30 September 2010 at 4.00pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
19 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(VN)
CC:
To,
PIO & Assistant Director
Vigilance Department
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
16, Rajpura Road, Delhi
Page 3 of 3