CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/903314/11086
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/903314
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Singh,
6131,Alok Vihar,
F6, Sector 50,
Noida, UP.
Respondent : Mr. S. P. Sharma
Public Information Officer & Assistant Director of Vigilance
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Vigilance Department,
26th Floor, Civic Center, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Bhawan,
Minto Road, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 12/07/2010
PIO replied : Not mentioned.
First appeal filed on : 17/08/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 20/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 18/11/2010 Information Sought:
1 Details of the actions taken by the office with the copy of the documents.
2 Inspect the relevant records.
Reply of PIO:
Provided the requisite information.
First Appeal:
Since the information has been provided by the PIO after the lapse of 30 days hence the adequate actions
must be taken.
Order of the FAAs Order:
After the hearing on 29-09-2010 PIO is directed to provide the correct information and allow the appellant
to inspect the records within 15 days.
Reply of the CPIO (After the FAA’s order):
Since the diary no 8723 CED is under investigation information cannot be provided, however applicant can
investigate the records within 15 days.
Ground for the Second appeal:
Provide the requisite information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Singh;
Respondent : Mr. S. P. Sharma, Public Information Officer & Assistant Director of Vigilance;
The FAA had ordered that the information should be provided within 15 working days on
20/10/2010. Thus the information should have bee provided to the Appellant before 10/11/2010. The PIO
states that since this file has been submitted to CVO the file was not available. As soon the file became
available the information was sent to the Appellant. The Appellant admits that he has received the complete
information.
The appellant points out that the Vigilance Department has taken two years to come to the conclusion that
the charges against him should be dropped. The extreme slow motion with which Vigilance Department
works results in unnecessary harassment to the innocent and ensures that the guilty do not have to suffer.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided.
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
21 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ns)