CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003348/10929
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003348
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R.L. Makhija,
G-14, Arjun Nagr,
Gall no. 4, Delhi-110051.
Respondent : Mr. S. P. Sharma
Public Information Officer & Assistant Director,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The Asst Director of Vigilance,
Vigilance Department,
16, Rajpur Road, Delhi -110054.
RTI application filed on : 19-07-2010 PIO replied : 07-09-2010 First appeal filed on : 27-08-2010 First Appellate Authority order : 20-10-2010 Second Appeal received on : 29-11-2010 Information sought:
The appellant had asked the PIO regarding RDA no. 1/100-02 dt. 13.11.03 & 1/171/2004 dt. 04.05.2005
was issued against Mr. Rajesh Khanna, RE, currently working as a Superintending Engineer, Najafgarh.
1. Please provide the copy of file of the above mentioned RDA with proper details and all documents.
2. Please provide the complete copy of noting sheet iii details of above mentioned RDA.
3. Kindly allow me to inspect the file of above mentioned RDA.
4. Kindly also provide the details of investigating team worked on the above mentioned RDA.
5. Kindly provide us the copies reports. if any submitted by Inquiry officers.
6. Kindly provide the First and second stages copy for the advice taken from CVC.
The PIO’s repled :
“on the subject cited above, you have sought the information as well as inspection of RDA file No. 1/100-02
dt. 13.11.03 & 1/171/2004, in this connection, it is requested that the record of these RDA file are very
bulky, hence you are requested to inspect the record of these files and identify the specific documents so
that same could be provided to you”.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied with the PIO’s reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“The appellant filed an application dated 29.7.2010 seeking copies of complete RDA files No.
1/10012002 & 1/171/2004 and inspection thereof. PLO, Vig. vide letter dated 7.9.2010 requested the
appellant to inspect the said RDA files as the record of said RDA files are very bulky and identify the
specific documents. During the course of hearing, the appellant agreed to inspect the said RDA files and to
identify the necessary documents to be supplied.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, PIO, Vig., ALO, CVC and Ms. Rajni Sehdev, ALO (Vig.)
are directed to allow the inspection of the said RDA files within 10 days and to supply the copies of
documents identified by the appellant within a week after the inspection”.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
– During Hearing, First Appellate Authority, Director Vigilance ref no. DOV / PCI Vig. /2010 / 6482
dated 20-10-2010 had asked the applicant to inspect the File and assured the applicant that they are
ready to provide all the documents after the inspection, order copy annexed here as Annexure A-S.
– That the applicant visited the vigilance office dt. 13.10.2010, 18.10.2010, 21.l0.2010, 25.10.2010 but
on the reception they replied that the JLO’s Mr. Gandhi and Mrs. Rajni are not available in the
office. Applicant also sent a letter dt 27.10.2010 regarding this: vigilance receiving diary no.22385
dt 27.10.2010 addressed to The Director of Vigilance.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. R.L. Makhija;
Respondent: Mr. Tirth Ram, Assistant Director on behalf of Mr. S. P. Sharma, Public Information Officer
& Assistant Director;
The Respondent states that they have inquired into the complaint of the Appellant that no body was present
when he went for the inspection. The Respondent states that there were authorized persons available who
could have facilitated the inspection. The Recommends that all Appellate Authority when fixing inspection
should fix time and date so that such miscommunication does not occur. The Appellant confirms that he has
received the photocopy of the entire file on 13/12/2010. It is difficult for the Commission to fix
responsibility on any one officer for the fact that the Appellant could not be given inspection.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
13 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(BK)