CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001765/8827Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001765
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs Girija Somani
Somani Associate,
Advocate Delhi High Court,
Chamber No. 159,
Western Wing Tiz Hazari Courts,
Delhi - 110054.
Respondent : Mr. R. N. Sharma
Public Information Officer &
Dy. Director of Education,
District North East, RTI Cell,
Directorate of Education
Government of N.C.T. of Delhi
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 19/09/2009
PIO replied : 23/12/2009
First appeal filed on : 23/01/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 19/03/2010
Second Appeal received on : 24/06/2010
Sl. Information Sought PIO's reply
1. Please provide a copy of order no. PS/DE/2008/9748 dated 21/11/2008 passed Copy of the said
by Shri Chander Bhushan Kumar, Director of Education, Delhi along with Order was
annexure in respect of Smt. Sudesh Tyagi, S. No.20 in which her basic pay is enclosed.
shown as Rs.950 in March 1995 and amount payable to her is Rs.3 20, 604/-
2. Please provide a copy of order no. PS/DE/2008/9810 dated 11/12/2008 passed As above.
by Shri Chander Bhushan Kumar, Director of Education, Delhi along with
annexure in respect of Smt. Sudesh Tyagi.
3. The provision under which the Cadre of Smt. Sudesh Tyagi was changed. As above.
4. Designation, qualification and amount of last pay drawn by Smt. Sudesh Tyagi. As above.
5. The provision under which the Directorate of Education raised the basic pay. Information was
not available in
that zone.
6. Whether Smt. Sudesh Tyagi was qualified to draw basic pay of Rs. 1400. As above.
7. The provision under which the Directorate of Education created its own pay As above.
scale with respect to Smt. Sudesh Tyagi.
Page 1 of 4
8. Details of the Officers responsible for verification of last pay drawn and As above.
qualification.
9. Whether the Directorate of Education is the appointing authority in respect of As above.
employees of unaided private schools.
10 The criteria that were used to determine the amount drawn as mentioned in the As above.
. orders.
11 Upon whom would responsibility be fixed if it was determined that the above As above.
. mentioned orders were faulty.
12 If it was determined that the above mentioned orders were faulty, then details As above.
. of the action that can be taken by Smt. Sudesh Tyagi.
13 Whether fresh orders would be issued (and on which date) if it was determined As above.
. that the above mentioned orders were faulty or illegal.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO was directed to give a fresh reply to the Appellant with respect to Point No. 4 within 10 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on August 4, 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Surender Singh representing Mrs. Girija Somani;
Respondent: Mr. R. N. Sharma, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director of Education;
“The RTI Application had been field with the HQ of Directorate of Education on 19/09/2009. The
RTI application was transferred to North East Zone on 03/10/2010. The PIO has stated that there is no
record of any reason for changing the cadre of Mrs. Sudesh Tyagi and he has given information regarding
query-1,2 & 4 for which he had the information. The appellant wants to know if there is any record of this
anywhere with the directorate of education. The respondent states that all the records regarding this and
all the other queries of the appellant should be with the HQ and this RTI application should not have been
transferred to his zone. The Commission directs the PIO to transfer the RTI application to the PIO(HQ)
immediately and PIO(HQ) is directed to provide the information to the appellant before 25 August 2010.”
Decision dated August 4, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The Commission directs the PIO to transfer the RTI application alongwith this
order to the PIO(HQ) immediately and PIO(HQ) is directed to provide the information to
the appellant before 25 August 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
(HQ) Mr. Anjum Masood within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO (HQ) is 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’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section
20 (1).
Page 2 of 4
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show
cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Anjum Masood, PIO (HQ) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
08 September 2010 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He 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 him.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on September 8, 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Anjum Masood, PIO/DDE (HQ).
Mr. Anjum Masood submitted that there are two PIOs at the Head Quarters who look after the work of
RTI applications. The RTI applications relating to government schools were dealt by him whereas RTI
applications pertaining to aided and unaided public schools were dealt by the PIO (Act). The RTI
application dated 19/09/2009 was in respect of Greenfield Public School, Dilshad Garden and came
within the purview of PIO (Act). Mr. Masood stated that the RTI application dated 19/09/2009 was
received at the office of the PIO (Act) on 22/09/2009 and was transferred to PIO (NE) only on
03/10/2009. Mr. Masood stated that he did not receive a copy of the RTI application dated 19/09/2009.
Subsequently, the order of the Commission passed on 04/08/2010 was sent to the PIO/DDE (HQ) and PIO
(Act) by the PIO (NE) vide letter dated 07/08/2010. Since the information sought did not pertain to the
PIO/DDE (HQ), it transferred the order of the Commission to the PIO (Act). The PIO (Act) returned the
order of the Commission to the PIO/DDE (HQ) stating that the PIO (Act) did not have any role in the said
RTI application and that the reply should be furnished by the PIO/DDE (HQ). Thereafter, the PIO/DDE
(HQ) put up a note before the higher authorities on 20/08/2010 stating that the information sought
pertained to public school, which came within the purview of the PIO (Act) and that the latter should be
directed to provide the complete information in relation to the RTI application. The RTI application dated
19/09/2009 was received at the office of PIO (Act) on 24/08/2010.
The Commission is satisfied with the submissions made by Mr. Masood. On perusal of the papers, the
Commission observed that the RTI application dated 19/09/2009 was received at the office of the PIO
(Act) on 22/09/2009 and transferred to the PIO (NE) only on 03/10/2009. If the information sought
pertained to the PIO (NE), then as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the RTI application should have been
transferred by the PIO (Act) to the PIO (NE) within five days from the date of receipt of the application
i.e. by 27/09/2009. However, the PIO (Act) failed to do so. Moreover, given that the information sought
pertained to the PIO (Act), it appears that he did not apply his mind while perusing the contents of the RTI
application dated 19/09/2009 and forwarded the same to the PIO (NE).
Adjunct Decision:
In view of the aforesaid, the Commission directs Mr. Marcell Ekka, PIO (Act) to provide the complete
information in relation to the RTI application dated 19/09/2009 to the Appellant before September 28,
2010.
Page 3 of 4
Further, the Commission directs Mr. Marcell Ekka, PIO (Act) to appear before the Commission on
October 25, 2010 at 3:00 pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The PIO (Act) is directed to produce before the
Commission any relevant document that he may have relied on in his written submissions. If there are
other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information who have not been included in this
show cause notice, the PIO (Act) is directed to serve this show cause to them and direct them to appear
before the Commission on 25/10/2010 along with him.
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
September 8, 2010
CC: Mr. Marcell Ekka,
PIO (Act), Directorate of Education,
GNCTD,
Old Secretariat, Delhi
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)
Page 4 of 4