CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002097/5234
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002097
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Anubhuti Mehta,
C/o Wg Cdr N K Mehta
H No SP- 230/4, Subroto Park
New Delhi - 110010
Respondent : Mr. Somit Srivastava,
APIO
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi- 110602
RTI application filed on : 08/04/2009
PIO replied : 19/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 09/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 17/08/2009
Second Appeal received on : 28/08/2009
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. The number of special audits ordered by the One.
Vigilance section of Kendriya Vidyalaya HQ on
the basis of complaints against the Principal,
during the year 2008-09.
2. The list of names of Principals who have been One Principal has been suspended.
suspended in 2008-09 for financial irregularities
pointed out by the special audit ordered by the Smt. Anubhuti Mehta,
vigilance section of the KVS HQ, with the name Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector 31,
of the Kendriya Vidyalayas where they were Chandigarh.
serving before suspension.
3. The number of cases where the Principals were None.
not made aware of the Special Audit and the
reasons for thereof.
4. Whether mandatory to obtain the comments of Does not come under the purview of
the principal on the observations of the special RTI.
audit before taking any administrative or
disciplinary action.
5. The cases where the comments of the Principal None.
were not obtained and the reasons there of.
6. a) Policy of ordering inquiries based on a) On the basis of nature of complaints
anonymous complaints. (anonymous or pseudonymous), the
competent authority orders a fact
b) Whether the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan finding inquiry.
Administration informs the concerned Principal b) Does not come under the purview of
about the complaints at the time of ordering the RTI.
inquiry.
c) Whether the Principal is given the opportunity c) Affirmative.
to present his case.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA concurred with the PIO and further elaborated that on:
• Query 3, the Appellant was not informed about the special audit since at that time she
was not the incumbent Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, sector 30, Gandhinagar.
• Query 4, the “CIC has no power to enquire into why, how and in what matter a
decision was taken”.
• Query 5, a show cause notice (reported by the special audit) File no 08/08/2007 KVS
(Vig.) dated 11/12/2008 was issued to the Appellant to submit her reply.
• Query 6, the Appellant was given an opportunity to present her case through a show
cause notice issued to her dated 11/12/2008.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Anubhuti Mehta;
Respondent: Mr. Somit Srivastava, APIO;
Query numbers 3, 5 and 6 had not been framed properly and there seems to be some confusion in
interpreting the queries. With the help of the appellant the queries are framed again as follows:
1- Query 3: In how many cases the Principals were informed about special audit of their
period.
2- Query 5: In how many cases comments of Principals were obtained.
3- Query 6: Is there any written police on ordering enquiries based on anonymous
complaints.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information with regards to queries 3, 5 and 6 as described above to the
Appellant before 05 November 2009.
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
27 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)