CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000297/11803
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000297
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma,
82, Arsh Complex,
Alfa-I, Greater Noida Distt,
Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent : Mrs. Anita Satia
PIO & Dy. Director
Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Distt. South, Defence Colony,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 11/11/2010
PIO replied : 07/12/2010
First appeal filed on : 20/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 30/12/2010
Second Appeal received on : 31/01/2011
S.No. Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO
1. A certified copy of the daily progress report on the Not related to H.O.S. received the copy of
enclosed complaint with details such as when did the complaint and reply submitted on 16/11/2010.
enclosed complaint reach which officer, up to which
date it remained with him and what written action has
been taken till date.
2. Whether the enquiry on the complaint has been Reply to be submitted by higher authorities.
completed.
3. If the enquiry has been completed, has any action been As above.
taken against the erring officials?
4. Name person/persons who was found responsible for the As above.
wrong doings in said complaint.
5. If the enquiry has not been completed, how much time As above.
will it take to complete?
6. Copy of the Attendance Register of teachers/staff of the Copy of attendance register enclosed alongwith
month of October of G.B.S.S.S. Chirag Delhi and hard hard copy.
copy of attendance on 29/10/10
7. If ‘On Duty’ is written in the columns of teachers on Marked by Incharge/Sr. most PGT (Eng) n the
29/10/2010, then name the person who wrote it and by basis of court order (copy enclosed). Sh. Suresh
whose order? Kumar TGT was requested on telephone to attend
school for short period by incharge.
First Appeal:
Response not satisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
PIO was directed to provide the requisite information as required by the appellant within 15days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information not provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma;
Respondent: Ms.Madhu Singh, Dy. Education Officer on behalf of Mrs. Anita Satia, PIO & Dy. Director;
The FAA had ordered on 30/12/2010 that information should be provided within 15 days. The
information has been sent to the Appellant on 29/01/2011. The following deficiencies are found in this
which the PIO is directed to correct;
1- Attested photocopies of the communications and file notings evidencing the action taken with
respect to the complaint.
2- Attested copy of the summons which has been mentioned in the reply to query no-7.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 15 April 2011.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified by the FAA of 15 days. She has given the information after 29 days after the
order of the FAA instead of 15 days as ordered by the First Appellate Authority.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on her.
She will give her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 April 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
01 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (CK)