Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00012
Dated: 24 October 2008
Name of the Appellant : Ms. Poonam Dabas
TV News Correrpondent Doordarshan
News Room No. 69, Central Production
Center, Khel Goan, New Delhi, 110049
Name of the Public Authority : Prasar Bharati
Background:
Smt. Poonam Dabas of New Delhi filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, Prasar Bharati, on 17 August 2007, seeking information
relating to the details of the Gazette notification with respect to her
appointment in the Department. The PIO vide his letter dated 13 August 2007
forwarded her RTI-application to the Director General, Doordarshan, under
intimation to the Appellant. Not getting any reply from the concerned PIO, the
Appellant filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 6 September 2007
who vide his letter dated 14 September 2007 replied to it. Thereafter, the
Appellant approached the Central Information Commission with a Second Appeal
on 13 November 2007, which was registered on 5 January 2008. The case was
scheduled a number of times but had to be postponed on account of requests
from Public authorities. The case was finally heard by the Bench of Dr. O.P.
Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, on 3 September 2008.
2. During the hearing, the Commission found that although there were five
representatives from the side of the Respondents, none of them had come
prepared for the case: least of all, the PIO. The Appellate Authority was absent
without a proper prayer for leave of absence. The Commission adjourned the
case and gave a fresh date on 1 October 2008.
3. The Commission vide its decision dated 10 September 2008 observed that
because of the lackadaisical attitude of the Respondents, the Appellant had to
suffer unnecessary mental harassment. The Commission, therefore, directed
the Respondents to provide a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Appellant for
the undue harassment that she had gone through.
4. The Bench of Dr.O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the
matter again on 1 October 2008.
5. Shri P. Doungul, Director (Administration) & PIO, Shri Shok Kumar, Dy.
Director, Shri S.K. Pandit, Section Officer of DG:DD and Shri S.K. Garg, Under
Secretary) and Shri V.K. Bhardwaj of M/o IB, represented the Respondents.
6. The Appellant, Smt. Poonam Dabas, was present in person.
Decision:
7. The Commission heard both the sides and noted that the Appellant
wanted was the details of the Gazette Notification where she had been shown
as a Gazetted Officer. The Respondents on the other hand stated that there
was no such Gazette Notification and therefore there was no question of
existence of any records related thereto. The Appellant on the other hand
stated that she should have been notified as a Gazetted Officer and that the
Department had not done justice to her in this regard. The Commission advises
her to take up this grievance/complaint at the appropriate fora including the
senior officials of the Department itself or the Courts.
8. The case is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms. Poonam Dabas, TV News Correrpondent Doordarshan News, Room No.
69, Central Production Center, Khel Goan, New Delhi, 110049
2. The Public Information Officer, DDA- (SV), Prasar Bharati, (Broadcasting
Corporation of India), DG: Doordarshan, Mandi House, New Delhi-110001
3. The Public Information Officer, Prasar Bharati, (Broadcasting Corporation of
India), DG: News, Doordarshan News, CPC, Khel Gaon, New Delhi
4. The Public Information Officer, Incharge BA(E) Section, Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
5. Officer Incharge, NIC
6. Press E Group, CIC