Mr.Rajinder Singh Dhankar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 24 January, 2011

0
20
Central Information Commission
Mr.Rajinder Singh Dhankar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 24 January, 2011
                            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                Club Building (Near Post Office)
                              Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                     Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                         Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002673/10110Adjunct-I
                                                                          Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002673
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Surinder Singh Dhankar
C-2/120, Janak Puri,
New Delhi – 110058.

Respondent                               :       Mr. S. C. Yadav
                                                 Public Information Officer &
                                                         Jt. Assessor and Collector (Admin)/HQ
                                                 Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                                 Property Tax Building, Ring Road,
                                                 Lajpat Nagar - III, New Delhi - 110024.

RTI application filed on                 :       02/02/2010
PIO replied                              :       23/04/2010
First appeal filed on                    :       14/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order          :       26/07/2010
Second Appeal received on                :       24/09/2010
Notice of Hearing sent on                :       19/10/2010
Sl.                    Information Sought                                       Reply of the PIO
1.    Name of the officer under whose instruction the        As the matter of release of payment was sub-judice,
      GPF, Gratuity Amount, PF and pension arrear of         payment had been stopped.
      Ms. Motia Dhankar was withheld.

2. Details of the rule under which the said amounts had As per reply in point no. G (i) above.

been withheld.

3. Whether entries of the GPF communication had Missing entries were to be retrieved after verification of
been retrieved or not. deduction of GPF vouchers and passing of contingency
bills.

4. Details of terminal benefits as on 02/02/2010 of Ms. The total terminal benefits of deceased Ms. Motia
Motia Dhankar. Dhankar was to be calculated after codal formalities of
retirement/death cases. Moreover, the matter was sub-

judice in the court.

First Appeal:

Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO..

Order of the FAA:

The PIO/HQ was directed to give full information as per available record to the Appellant.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

Non-compliance of the FAA’s order by the PIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on November 22, 2010:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Surinder Singh Dhankar;

Respondent : Mr. S. C. Yadav, Public Information Officer & Jt. Assessor and Collector(Admin)/HQ; Mr.
M. C. Jha, Dy. Assessor and Collector & APIO;

“The Deemed PIO Mr. M. C. Jha who was present at the First Appellate hearing has not provided the information as
per the order of the FAA. He claims that he was trying to resolve the grievance of the Appellant. This is completely

Page 1 of 3
untenable argument. When a citizen exercises his right under RTI he must be provided information on the status or the
reasons on the record for taking or not taking some actions.”

Decision dated November 22, 2010:

The Appeal was allowed.

“The Deemed PIO Mr. M. C. Jha is directed to provide the complete information as per the records to the
Appellant before 05 December 2010.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO
Mr. M. C. Jha, Dy. A&C within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the
denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be
given.

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.

Mr. M. C. Jha, Deemed PIO & Dy. A&C will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 27
December 2010 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision
and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.”

Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on December 27, 2010:
The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Surinder Singh Dhankar;

Respondent: Mr. M. C. Jha, APIO & Dy. A & C.

“The Commission noted that further to its order dated 22/11/2010, information was provided to the
Appellant by Mr. M. C. Jha vide letter dated 01/12/2010. It was observed that the information provided in
relation to queries 1 and 2 was completely unsatisfactory. As regards query 3, it was observed that a request
for the information was sent to the AO (HQ) and Dy. A & C, West Zone for verification of the missing
entries, out of which verified details were received only from AO (HQ) and the report of Dy. A & C, West
Zone was still awaited. It appears that Mr. Jha had sought the assistance of the Dy. A & C, West Zone under
Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. However, the Dy. A & C, West Zone failed to furnish the complete information
within the prescribed time limit.

Further, Mr. Jha submitted that the initial reply to the RTI application furnished vide letter dated 08/03/2010
was provided by Mr. S. C. Yadav, PIO & Jt. A & C (Admn.) and that it was Mr. S. C. Yadav who was
required to comply with the order of the FAA.”

Adjunct Decision dated 27/12/2010:

“In view of the aforesaid, the Commission hereby directs Mr. M. C. Jha, APIO & Dy. A & C to provide
specific reply to queries 1 and 2 to the Appellant before January 17, 2011.

The Dy. A & C, West Zone is hereby directed to provide the complete information in relation to query 3 to
the Appellant before January 17, 2011.

Further, Mr. S. C. Yadav, PIO & Jt. A & C (Admn.), Mr. M. C. Jha, APIO & Dy. A & C and the Dy. A &
C, West Zone are hereby directed to appear before the Commission for a show cause hearing at the above
address on January 24, 2011 at 10:30 am. They may make oral or written submissions to the Commission
on that date to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
They are directed to produce before the Commission copy of the information provided to the Appellant and

Page 2 of 3
any relevant document that they may have relied on in their written submissions. If there are other persons
responsible for not complying with the provisions of the RTI Act who have not been included in this show
cause notice, they are directed to serve this show cause to them and direct them to appear before the
Commission on 24/01/2011 along with them.”

Relevant facts emerging during the hearing on 24/01/2011:

Appellant: Mr. Surinder Singh Dhankar
Respondent: Mr. S.C. Yadav, PIO & Jt. A&C(Admn.); Mr.M.C. Jha, APIO & Dy. A&C (HQ) and Mr.
Rakesh Sharma, Dy. A&C(West Zone);

The Appellant has received some information on Query no. 1, 2 & 3 vide letter dated 12/01/2011.
On perusal of the same the response on Query nos. 1 & 2 appears to be satisfactory. However the Appellant
is not satisfied with the information provided to him. The APIO & Dy. A&C Mr. M.C. Jha has accepted that
no information had been provided to the Appellant in compliance of the FAA’s order but he has produced
some file notings stating that in compliance of the FAA’s order dated 27/07/2010 some action was being
taken as to payment of dues. Some information was provided to the Appellant only on 01/12/2010.

The Dy. A&C(West Zone) Mr. Rakesh Sharma has claimed that the PIO had never sought assistance
U/s 5(4) of the RTI act from him with regard to this RTI application. He received a copy of Commission’s
decision dated 27/12/2010 on 07/01/2011 through fax. Mr. Sharma has also stated that he is not the
custodian of information in this matter. Mr. M. C. Jha, APIO & Dy. A&C (HQ) has stated that the
calculation has been made and decision has been taken to pay the GPF and Family Pension due to husband
of Mrs. Motia Dhankar and a letter has been sent to DCA(GPF) to calculate the total amount and interest
thereon so that the payment can be made. He states that after this is done the approval of Additional
Commissioner (Establishment) would be sought to release the payment. Mr. Jha had stated that he had
sought the information about verification of paid vouchers from Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Dy. A&C(West Zone).
However, Mr. Rakesh Sharma has shown the Commission that Mr. Jha had made no disclosure of the fact
that he was seeking assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. Besides Mr. Sharma states that the
verification has to be done by the Accounts Department (WZ) and if he had been informed that the matter
was arising out of the RTI application he would have immediately done the needful.

It appears difficult to pinpoint responsibility on any individual officer for the delay in providing the
information to the Appellant, hence the penalty proceedings are dropped.

Adjunct Decision:

The Respondent Mr. Jha is directed to provide the photocopies of all the file notings
and letters regarding payment of GPF, Family Pension, Gratuity and copy of correspondence
with the SBI and Delhi Nagri Sahkari Bank to the Appellant before 05 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 the RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)

Page 3 of 3

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *