Central Information Commission
CIC/OK/A/2008/789/AD
Dated December 8, 2008
Name of the Appellant : Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan
TV Correspondent
Room No.2
DD News, CPC
Khelgaon
New Delhi 110 049
Name of Public Authority : The CPIO
DG : Doordarshan
New Delhi
Background
1. The RTI application was filed on 11.10.07. The Appellant requested
for information against 5 points including points related to action
taken by the Directorate against DTC, DDK, Patna and on CIC’s
viewpoint in its Order dated 16.8.07 that the Appellant has been
discriminated against in his Office. The ACPIO, Prasar Bharati,
Doordarshan Kendra, Patna replied on 19.11.07 on behalf of CPIO
stating that no action has been taken based on what CIC had held
about the Appellant facing discrimination in his office. The CPIO
provided point-wise information against the remaining points in the
RTI application. The CPIO, Doordarshan, Lucknow also replied on
19.11.07 providing some information. Not satisfied with the replies,
the Appellant filed his first appeal on 19.12.07. The First Appellate
Authority , Directorate General, Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting
Corporation of India) Doordarshan, replied on 14.1.08 and the First
Appellate Authority, Directorate General: Doordarshan replied on
13.2.08. Not satisfied with the replies of the two First Appellate
Authorities, the Appellant filed his second appeal before the CIC on
14.5.08 and reiterated his request for the information.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner,
scheduled the hearing for December 8, 2008.
3. Ms.Sunita Bharal, Dy. Director and Mr.M.K.Singh, Section Officer
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant, Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan was present in person during
the hearing.
Decision
5. The Appellant submitted that he is confused by the contradictory
pieces of information being provided to him by the Officers in Prasar
Bharati, Directorate General: Doordarshan. In the first instance, Ms.
Rita Kumar, Appellate Authority & DDG (Admin) DG: Doordarshan
wrote in her Order dated 14.1.08 that the matter regarding Mr. S.K.
Grover, the then Director, DDK , Patna, sharing a dias with political
leaders is being referred to the zonal DDG for inquiry and submitting a
report. Mr. R. Venkateshwarulu the Appellate Authority, DG:
Doordarshan, however, wrote in his Order dated 13.2.08 that the
matter of Mr. Grover sharing a dias with political leaders has been
verified and that Mr. Grover was accompanying the Minister as part of
the protocol and that he was present in the press conference by MSIB
on 15.2.04 during the time when the Election Commission’s Code of
Conduct was not in force. The Appellant expressed his suspicion that
all attempts are being made to protect Mr. Grover and that if Mr.
Grover did join the Minister as a part of the protocol then he should
be provided with a copy of the Order saying so.
6. The Appellant also pointed out that in the Order dated 14.1.08 from
Rita Kumar , AA and DDG(Admn), DG: Dordarshan it is stated that
Mr. Grover, Director, DDK, Lcknow, was only appointed as DDG (In
charge) of DDK, Lucknow due to administrative reasons and that
designation of regular DDG in respect of Mr. Grover is not permissible
unless he is promoted as regular DDG. The fact that Mr. Grover is
only In-Charge has also been corroborated by in the Order dated
19.11.07 from Mr. Kripa Shankar Yadav, CPIO. The Appellant stated
that he himself had furnished a copy of a communication in which Mr.
Grover used the designation DDG.
7. The Appellant further submitted that inadvertently a typographical
error was made when he wrote ” Pranab Shati’ instead of “Pranab
Shahi’ when he was enquiring whether Mr. Grover stayed in a house
of a private Producer Mr. Shati while he was posted in Patne. The
contention of the Appellant is that the CPIO has taken advantage of
the typographical error when he replied that no person with the name
Mr. Shati lives in Patna, despite the Appellant informing him that it is a
typographical error.
8. The Respondents also submitted a rejoinder giving brief details. With
regard to use of Designation DDG by Mr. Grover, who was only In-
Chage, the Respondents stated the ‘Communication using
Designation as DDG by Shri. S.K. Grover in one communication
preferred to the Co-ordination Cell which does not seem to
have any impact on the functioning on In Charge DDG as both
enjoy the same powers of DDG.’
9. The Respondents further submitted that payments of telephone bills
has been made to the Appellant and that interest payments are not
permissible under the Rules and also there is no court directions on
the subject.
6. After studying the case the Commission is of the opinion that the
Appellant is justified in getting confused by the contradictory
information provided by the two Appellate Authorities and urges the
Appellate Authorities to improve coordination between different
Sections of the Directorate while replying to RTI applications. The
Commission holds that if as per Ms. Rita Kumar’s version, there is an
inquiry report, a copy of the report should be provided to the Appellant
by the CPIO. If, on the other hand, Mr. Grover was, indeed, a part of
the protocol then a certified copy of the Protocol Order, without which
Mr. Grover cannot join the Minister’s entourage, to be provided to the
Appellant.
10. With regard to the issue of telephone bills, the CPIO to provide
documents to support their statement for not giving the interest on
the reimbursement for telephone bills. The Appellant also to be
provided with the answer to the first part of his question point (d)
about the expenditure incurred on the trip to Delhi on Mr. Grover,
when he appeared before the CIC . Also now that the Appellant has
once again clarified that ‘Shati’ should be read as ”Shahi’, the CPIO is
directed to provide information sought against point 5 of the RTI
application.
11. All the information should be provided within 1 month of receipt of this
Order.
12. The appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Mr.Sudhanshu Ranjan
TV Correspondent
Room No.2
DD News, CPC
Khelgaon
New Delhi 110 049
2. The CPIO
DG : Doordarshan
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority – RTI
Deputy Director General (Admn)
Doordarshan
New Delhi
4. The Appellate Authority – RTI
Deputy Director General (Programme)
Doordarshan
New Delhi
5. Officer incharge, NIC
6. Press E Group, CIC