CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/01086/SG/0630
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/01086/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. V.K.Agarwal,
Wz-75, G-Floor, Gali No-4,
Shiv Nagar, New Delhi-110058.
Respondent 1 : Ms. Ambika Kalra,
Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalya, Baddowal Cantt,
Dist. Ludhiana-142021.
RTI filed on : 11/03/2008
PIO replied : 17/03/2008
First appeal filed on : 24/03/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 30/04/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 14/07/2008
The Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed an appeal seeking some information about leave account of teachers.
The queries as under:
1. Certified copy of document on the basis of which the in-service course at IIT Delhi from
19-05-75 to 14-06-75 has been account of Sh. V.K.Agrawal, thus deducting 4 days leaves.
2. Certified copy of the rules where 30 EL are admission in a year to be vacations staff and
deducting 9 days leaves in the year 1983.
3. Sh. V.K. Agarwal remained on duty from 04-05-08 to 13-06-08 total 41 days, thus entitle
to 25 days EL. Where as only 18 days leaves has been shown in the recasting of leave
account, on what account leaves for 7 days have been deducted may be explained?
4. In the year 1988, 3 days leaves have been shown as deducted under the pretend that 30
days leave leaves are admissible in a year. Please supply the copy of rules issued from DOPT
in regard to entitlement of leaves to vocational staff in School.
5. Similarly in the year 1997, 9 days leaves deducted on the pretest as per point no 4 as
above. Please supply rules.
6. Copy of orders of the Competent Authority to otherwise officiating principal to recast the
leave account of a teacher and that too after a gap of 4 years from the date of retirement of a
teacher.
7. Certified copies of all leave applications for all the year 2002 for which leaves have been
deducted from leave account.
8. Certified copy of rules under which leaves for duty performed during breaks are not
entitled as shown in leave account.
9. Reasons for not entering the leaves for duties performed in the years 1979, 1992, 1984,
1995, 1996 for which office orders were submitted to Principal, KV, Baddowal.
The PIO Reply:
The PIO replied that “you are suggested to seek all the above information from the KVS
Regional Office, Chandigarh as all your service record including your personal file and
service book have been sent to KVS (RO) Chandigarh before your retirement for pension
purposes. Your IPO No.59E-162086 dated 25-02-08 for Rs.10/- is being returned herewith in
original.”
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“The grounds mentioned by the Appellant in his aforesaid appeal are not justified and
reasoned. The Principal & APIO, KV, Baddowal Cantt. has not denied supplying information
to the Appellant. Instead, she has simply advised him to collect the same from KVS (RO),
Chanigarh who is in custody of the relevant records. There is nothing vice of scornful in
advising right course of action to the Appellant. On the whole, the undersigned does not fine
any favour with the appeal of the Appellant which entities him to claim any relief under RTI
Act, 05. Hence, the Appellant is rejected being devoid of any merits.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. V.K.Agarwal,
Respondent: Ms. Ambika Kalra, PIO
The appellant had stated that the record is with RO. This was a completely unacceptable
answer. The PIO has not made any attempt to give any answer at all in the intervening
period. The PIO is able to give no explanation at all for this complete carelessness.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 5 January, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
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 to give reasons to the
Commission at the above address 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
her as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 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
18th December, 2008.
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)