CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000925/7866
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000925
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Reena Sharma
C-70, Millennium Apartments,
Sec - 18, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085.
Respondent : Mrs. Daljeet Kaur
Public Information Officer
State Council of Educational Research &
Training, GNCTD
Varun Marg, Defence Colony,
New Delhi – 110024.
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2009 PIO replied : 23/12/2009 First appeal filed on : 23/02/2010 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 13/04/2010 S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. Status of representation in respect of Ms. No.
Reena Sharma received from the SCERT.
Whether any reply in this regard had been
given to the above said authorities. If yes,
then copy of the same.
2. Action taken on the said representation. Yes.
3. Copies of the note sheet orders/decision Photocopy of note sheets had been given
taken in this regard. (enclosed). PIO, SCERT requested to
charge Rs.16/- on a/c of photocopy of 8
pages.
4. Permission to inspect the concerned file in File for permission in this regard was
which SCERT dealt the case of under submission w.e.f. 14/12/2009.
representation. Permission will be granted after
receiving the same.
Ground for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Ground for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO and no action taken by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mrs. Reena Sharma;
Respondent: Mrs. Daljeet Kaur, Public Information Officer ;
The PIO admits that no order has been given by the FAA Mrs. Rashmi Krishnan,
Director. The First Appellate Authority Mrs. Rashmi Krishnan appears to be guilty of
dereliction of duty since she does not appear to have passed any order in the matter.
The Respondent points out that the appellant herself was incharge of the
Administration Branch and was responsible for providing the information. This is a very
peculiar case where the holder of the information has sought information and is now raising
the matter that she did not herself provide the information. However, with a view to
facilitating her getting the information the Commission orders that the PIO will facilitate an
inspection of all the records by the Appellant so that the appellant can take the information
that she wants.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the records by the
appellant on 01 June 2010 at 11.00AM. The PIO will give attested photocopies
of the records which the appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
The First Appellate Authority Mrs. Rashmi Krishnan is directed to present herself
before the Commission with her explanation on 22 June 2010 at 4.30pm to showcause why
the Commission should not recommend disciplinary action against her for dereliction of duty.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(GJ)
CC:
To,
The First Appellate Authority Mrs. Rashmi Krishnan through Mrs.
Daljeet Kaur, Public Information Officer
