CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000911/7870Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000911
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Tarachand
1755, Paprawat,
PNB Lane, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110043
Respondent : Dr. Vimlesh
Deemed PIO &
Education Officer Zone -18 (W-B)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Directorate of Education;
G-Block, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 29/12/2009
PIO replied : No reply
First appeal filed on : 05/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 28/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 12/04/2010
Information Sought:
a) Day by day Action Taken Report of the complaints of the appellant.
b) Findings of the Directorate of Education regarding:-
1) Pay fixation as on 01/01/2006 (as per the 6th pay commission)
2) Non – payment of salary arrears (as per 6th pay commission)
c) “Is the school disobeying the order of Directorate of Education, dated 11/02/2009,
according to which the school should pay the salary arrears to its staff members latest
by 31/10/2009?”
d) If the school is disobeying such orders, what action has been taken by the Education
Department against the school?
e) “As per the Citizen Charter of Education Department, how much time is required for
solution of such complaint?”
f) Names of officer presently handling the complaint.
g) Views of the school authority regarding the pay fixation of Primary Teachers and non –
payment of salary arrears.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
No reply provided by the PIO.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information provide by the PIO, even after the expiry of 30 days.
Page 1 of 4
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The First Appellate Authority has directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the
appellant within one week, under intimation to the FAA and also to initiate action against
APIO/EO Zone XIII under RTI Act for not providing the information.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO, even after the order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 26 May 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Tarachand;
Respondent: Mr. Devi Singh, Public Information Officer & Deputy Director of Education
(NW-B); Dr. Vimlesh, Education Officer Zone-13 and Deemed PIO;
The PIO admits that no information has been sent to the Appellant so far. The
Education Officer and deemed PIO Dr. Vimlesh states that she had sent information on
23/01/2010, 27/01/2010 and 12/02/2010. None of this has been forwarded to the Appellant by
the then PIO Mrs. Indira Rani Singh. The then PIO Mrs. Indira Rani Singh has made notings on
the information send by the Education Officer asking for correct and complete information to
be provided. The Education Officer claims that she had also more elaborate information after
12/02/2010. The Commission notices that the day to day action taken report of the complaint
sought in query-1 does not appear to have been provided by the Deemed PIO.”
Commission’s Decision dated 26 May 2010:
“The Appeal is allowed.
The present PIO Mr. Devi Singh is directed to provide the complete
information to the Appellant before 05 June 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the then PIO Mrs. Indira Rani Singh and deemed PIO Dr. Vimlesh EO(Z-13) within
30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO and deemed PIO are 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.
It appears that the PIO and deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
Mrs. Indira Rani Singh and deemed PIO Dr. Vimlesh EO(Z-13) will present themselves before
the Commission at the above address on 18 June 2010 at 02.30pm alongwith their written
submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under
Section 20 (1). They will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the
Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct
them to appear before the Commission with her.”
Page 2 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 June 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Ms. Indira Rani Singh the then Public Information Officer & Deputy Director
of Education (NW-B); Dr. Vimlesh Now Education Officer Zone-18 and Deemed PIO;
The PIO Mrs. Indira Rani Singh has given a written submission in which she has
stated that, “Education Officer, Zone-13, Dr. Vimlesh gave evasive, wrong, incorrect &
irrelevant replies (27.1.2010, 12.02.2010), instead of giving relevant & to the point
answer, she did bother to give the name of the officer handling the case. Her submission
before Hon’ble Information Commissioner is no maintainable as already been observed
by the Commission. Dr. Vimlesh has been issued a number of memos, Showcause notices
for delay in replies to RTI application. It has become her habit to furnish reply late, even
FAA too has passed order to initiate action against her. Due to her habit for submitting
reply late the previous PIO & the undersigned has been facing a lot of problems. The
applicants were forced to appeal before FAA & CIC.
It is high time she learns to respect & abide by rules & regulation. Dr. Vimlesh has tried
to mislead the CIC & she is guilty of denying of information within stipulated time.”
The Deemed PIO Dr. Vimlesh was asked to explain why she had not provided the proper
information on time. She states that she has now provided the complete information on
the day to day action taken report on 04/06/2010 to the appellant. It was pointed out to
her that this information was always actually held by her. She was asked why she did not
provide this information initially. She states that she was over loaded with work and does
not have adequate staff. She state that her staff is also not working well. The RTI act
clearly puts responsibility on the PIO or the deemed PIO whose assistance is sought
under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to provide the information. Even if an officer is very
short of time and has multiple jobs to perform it is not possible to believe that nay
rationale person would neglect doing the job in which failure to complete the job leads to
a personal liability of Rs.250/- per day. Dr. Vimlesh has given no explanation which can
be termed reasonable for her failure to give the information.
The RTI application has been made on 29/12/2009 and received in the office on
02/01/2010.Thus the information should have been provided to the appellant before
02/02/2010. Instead the complete information has been provided according to Dr.
Vimlesh on 04/06/2010. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100
days and no reasonable cause has been offered for this the Commission imposes the
maximum penalty of Rs. 25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI ACT on Dr. Vimlesh,
Education Officer, Zone – 13 and Deemed PIO.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this as a
fit case for levying penalty on Dr. Vimlesh, Education Officer, Zone – 13
and Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been over
100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Dr. Vimlesh,
Education Officer Rs. 25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
Page 3 of 4
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of Rs.25000/- from the salary of Dr. Vimlesh, Education Officer and
remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the
Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to
Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the
Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New
Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per
month every month from the salary of Dr. Vimlesh and remitted by the 10th
of every month starting from July 2010. The total amount of Rs.25000 /-
will be remitted by November, 2010.
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
18 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(MS)
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
Page 4 of 4