CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/01304/SG/0975
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/01304/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shankara Narayana Bhat,
Balakedarara Vedike (Consumer Forum),
Bus Stand Complex, Balehonnur,
Karnataka-577112.
Respondent 1 : Dr. N.N.Singh,
Asst. Commissioner (Admn.) & CPIO,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Resource Development, Dept. of School
Education & Literacy, Govt. of India,
Regional Office, Boring Road,
Patna-13.
RTI application filed on : 02/04/2008 PIO replied : 16/04/2008 First appeal filed on : 14/07/2008 First Appellate Authority order : Not Mentioned. Second Appeal filed on : 31/08/2008
The Appellant had filed an application seeking information regarding Disciplinary
S.No Information sought The PIO’s reply
1. Whether Mrs. P. Helen Mary has Mrs. P. Helen Mary has performed the duties of
discharged duty Principal or Principal at JNV Kaimur
Teacher at Kaimur District . She never worked
Navodaya Vidyalaya during the As teacher at JNV Kaimur.
years 2004-05.
2. Whether she was suspended Mrs. P. Helen Mary was placed under suspension
from duty around year 2004 – for the period from 19-0-04 to 04-11-04.
2005 for any reasons. If so, for Reasons for suspension:
what reasons she was suspended a. Failure to maintain devotion to duty and
how much days she was under to ensure devotion to duty of the
suspension. Whether any enquiry employee under her control.
held. Whether any disciplinary b. Disciplinary action initiated against her
action initiated against her. What under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) rules.
kind of penalty imposed on her? c. A penalty of withholding of annual
If any proceedings regarding this increment for two years without
matter please sent related papers cumulative effect was imposed upon Mrs.
(Xerox copy). Helen Mary.
d. Copy of order imposing penalty may be
sent after receipt of requisite fee. Total
No. of pages-02.
The First Appellate Authority Order:
Not Mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Jaikumar Gupta rerpresenting Dr. N.N.Singh PIO at the time of application.
The respondent had not sent the copy of the order imposing penalty as demanded by the
appellant at point 2 of the RTI application, hence the second appeal had been filed.
The PIO claims it is confidential, but is able to give no legitimate exemption under Section 8
(1). When asked he claims that the third party Mrs. P. Helen Mary has objected and is giving
the grounds of exemption as Section 8(1) (g) and (f) but is able to offer no justification for
these. These exemptions do not apply hence the information will have to be provided.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will send the information to the appellant before 18 January 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
12, January, 2009
In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)