JUDGMENT
M.M. Ansari, I.C.
Facts:
1. A preliminary hearing was held on 28.1.2008, in which the appellants appeared. In the 2nd hearing on 25/4/2008, the following were present: (1) Sh. Rajiv Bharti, (2) Smt. Parul Bharti, (3) Mrs Abha Joshi, (4) Ms. B. Tirkey, (4) Sh. A.K. Sardana, Chairman, S.D. Section School (Gujrat) and (5) Sh. S.K. Kapoor, Vice-Principal & PIO of the School.
2. The appellants, who are related as husband and wife, are employees of the respondent-2. The School Management has placed them under suspension for about two years. The Directorate of Education has not approved the suspension of the appellants and ordered for revocation of suspension of the appellants. The school management is, however, adamant and has not complied with the orders of the Directorate of Education. In defiance of the orders of the respondent-1, the respondent-2 has also not allowed the appellants to resume their duties.
3. In the meantime, the respondent -2 has completed the formalities fortermination of services of the appellants. In utter disregard to the oft-repeated directions and the reminders sent by the respondent-1 for compliance of the orders of the Director of Education for revocation of suspension, the respondent2 is pressurising for approval of termination of services of both the appellants.
4. The respondent-1 has also informed the respondent-2 that failure to comply with the direction of the respondent-1 would result in withdrawal of recognition and financial support by the Government. The respondent-2 has neither complied with the direction of respondent-1 nor is scared of the withdrawal of recognition and financial support provided by the Government.
5. Even though the respondent-1 has not approved the suspension of the appellants, the respondent-2 has gone a step further in putting pressure on the Government for approval of termination of services by the School Management. The respondent-2 is yet to take a decision in the matter.
6. In this backdrop, the appellants had sought certain information under the RTI Act through separate applications, which are identical. The PIO of the respondent-1 forwarded the applications, under Section 6(3) of the Act, to the PIO of the School, who has replied, in which it is stated that the School is not covered under the provisions of the Act. Respondent-2 has also sought exemption from disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, on the ground that an enquiry proceeding has been initiated against the appellants. Therefore, the information asked for could not be disclosed.
7. In the course of hearing, the following emerged:
(i) The appellant-2, Smt. Parul Bharti, allegedly suffered from sexual harassment by a teacher of the school. The matter was reported, among other authorities, to the Delhi Commission for Women, which observed as under:
This Commission feels a fresh inquiry with the requirement of fulfillment of principles of natural justice, may please be conducted by your committee from some independent and non interested members, to give the true picture regarding the complaint of Ms. Parul Bharti.” The appellant-2 stated that the school management did nothing to enquire the matter. However, a case has already been filed in the Court, which is examining the issues involved on the basis of complaint of sexual harassment.
(ii) Subsequent to the above incident, a series of events took place between the appellants and the respondent-2, which has led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellants. While the appellants have alleged harassment by the Management at the places of work, The Chairman and Vice-Principal of the School stated that the appellant were creating law and order problems in the Schools. The appellants were therefore placed under suspension and disciplinary action was initiated against them.
8. The respondent-1 had conveyed vide its letter dated 28/2/2007 that “the suspension of Sh. Rajiv Bharti, TGT, has been revoked immediately. Further, the three months’ extension has been granted up to 13/3/2007 to complete the disciplinary proceedings against him with the condition that no further extension will be allowed”.
9. The respondent-2, however, did not complete the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated period as directed by the respondent-1. The respondent-1 had also conveyed that “the worthy Director of Education has directed to revoke the suspension orders of Sh. Rajiv Bharti, TGT, and Smt. Parul Bharti, Lab. Assistant, of your school and submit the compliance immediately, failing which action will be initiated to withdraw the recognition of your school”.
10. The PIO of respondent-1 stated that in spite of oft repeated directions to the School, the school management has not complied with the direction of the respondent-1. The School has thus adopted a defiant attitude in the matter.
11. The respondent-2 stated that the Managing Committee of the School has approved the continuation of the suspension of the appellants with a resolution to approach the Directorate of Education to reconsider its order of revocation of suspension to which the response is awaited. The respondent-2 also stated the appellants did not cooperate with the enquiry officer which resulted in delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. It was also mentioned that for the reasons of indiscipline committed by the appellants, the management has decided to terminate the services of the appellants.
12. The PIO of the respondent-1 stated that they have conveyed to the management of the school that the suspension of the appellants should be revoked failing which the grant-in-aid to the school and its grant of recognition would be withdrawn. The School Management has, however, not complied with the direction given by the respondent-1. The orders issued by the respondent-1, including the reminders, were submitted to the Commission.
13. The applications for information were submitted to the PIO of the respondent-1, which transferred the applications under Section 6 (3) of the Act to the respondent-2, which is the custodian of information asked for. The information asked for pertain to the action taken on the representations submitted by the appellants in which they have complained that the respondent-2 was unwilling to revoke the suspension of the appellants and to allow them to resume duties. In the meantime, the respondent-2 has pressed for approval of termination of services of the appellants, which is awaiting the order of the Director of Education, GNCT of Delhi.
Decision:
14. This is an uncommon case in which the information providers namely, respondent-1 & 2 have utterly failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, which seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of the public authorities. The respondent-2 has invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, for denial of information since a disciplinary action was contemplated against the appellants. Even though the activities of the respondent-2, mainly promotion of education, are governmental in nature and that it receives substantial Government grants, it has taken the stand that the provisions of the RTI act are not applicable to them. Such a view of the School is highly deplorable.
15. The respondent-1 kept on issuing warnings to the School, but it could do nothing to ensure compliance of the orders concerning revocation of suspension of the appellants, who have been suffering for about two years. In the meantime, formalities have been completed to terminate the services of the appellants.
16. As the appellants have sought to know the action taken in respect of the compliance of direction issued by respondent-1, the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (h) by the respondent-2, the custodian of information, lacks justification. An on-going enquiry under Service (Conduct) Rules, as initiated by the respondent- 2, has no relationship with the direction given by the respondent-1. Therefore, the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(h) for denial of information by the respondent-2 is unjustified.
17. The respondent-2, which is recognized and largely financed by the respondent-1, has not complied with the orders of the Director of Education. In a resolution of dated August 1, 2007, the respondent -2 has decided that “all avenues be explored to convince the Hon’ble Director of Education of the need to continue the suspension of these employees and not to insist on the revocation of their suspension”. The respondent-2 has also decided “to take suitable legal measures including filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and appoint an advocate to represent” the respondent-2. Furthermore, the respondent-2 has also observed in its RTI reply that the appellant-2 is “jeopardizing her own employment as a natural corollary as the same society has employed her in the School”. A similar observation has been made in the reply sent to the appellant- 1 also.
18. Unfortunately, even before the School’s enquiry committee could submit its report, the management of the school has already concluded the action to be taken against the appellants. This is evident from the above observations made by the School that the appellants are jeopardizing their employment. Thus, ever since the beginning of the sexual harassment case reported by the appellant-2, wife of the appellant-1, management of the school and the appellants have had strained relationships and, therefore, the respondent-2 has completed the eye-wash formalities for termination of services of the appellants. Though the respondent-1 has intervened in the matter and directed the respondent-2 to revoke suspension failing which financial support and recognition of the School would be withdrawn, the respondent -2 has chosen to defy the orders of the Government.
19. From the facts of the case, it is proved that the respondent-2 has refused to provide the information by making a misleading statement that a Government aided school is not covered under the provisions of the Act. Moreover, the PIO of the School has wrongly invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the Act for malafide reasons. The School’s PIO is, therefore, held in violation of Section 7(1) of the Act, for withholding information and wrongly invoking Section 8(1)(h) for denial of information. The PIO of the School, Sh. S.K. Kapoor, is held responsible for denying the information for malafide reasons. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is therefore imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act in respect of each of the RTI application separately filed by the appellants and separately replied by him. It is accordingly ordered that Rs. 50,000/- (25,000/- + 25,000/-), being the amount of penalty, to be deposited by him in ten equal installments @Rs.5,000/- per month, by way of Banker’s Cheques drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, payable at New Delhi, to the Registrar, Central Information Commission, 2nd floor, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.
20. The appellants have unnecessarily faced prolonged harassment in the matter of seeking information as to why they have not been allowed to resume their duties even after the necessary orders passed by the Directorate of Education. And, the repeated reminders issued to the School Management have been ignored. This shows lack of accountability in the functioning of a Govt. aided School. The respondent-2 is, therefore, liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) each to the appellants, who have unduly suffered due to mala-fide intentions of the School Management.
21. Both the appellants should be directly and separately paid. The Chairman of the respondent-2 is directed to make arrangements for payment through bank draft within one month from the date of issue of this decision under intimation to the Commission, failing which penal interest @10% per annum on the total payable amount would be applicable. The PIO of the respondent-1 should ensure compliance of this decision notice.
22. The respondent-1 has an overall control and supervision of the activities of the Schools in Delhi. It would indeed create a chaotic situation, if the management of the Schools does not comply with the orders passed by the Director of Education. In the instant case, the respondent-2 has not complied with the orders of the respondent-1 dated 27/7/2007 and 28/2/2007, in which respondent-2 was directed to revoke suspension, failing which financial support and recognition would be withdrawn. Instead of complying with the direction given by the respondent-1, the respondent-2 has decided that all avenues be explored to convince the Hon’ble Director of Education of the need to continue the suspension of these employees and not to insist on the revocation of their suspension. The school management (respondent-2) has also decided to take up the matter with the Court, on the presumption that the Government would not yield to the pressure of the School Management. This indicates a pre- determined attitude of the respondent-2 to fight against the orders of the respondent-1.
23. Clearly, the respondent-2 has chosen the path of defiance of the orders of the respondent-1 at all costs. The Director of Education is, therefore, directed to initiate necessary action against the management of the school i.e. respondent-2, including the withdrawal of financial support and recognition of the school, as already directed in the aforementioned orders issued by the respondent-1 so as to ensure accountability of the School to the Government. It must also be ensured that the School Management is properly constituted, through democratic process, comprising persons who are committed to the principles of transparency and accountability in the RTI regime.
24. A compliance report should be submitted by the respondent-2 to the Commission within one month from the date of issue of this decision.
25. The appeals are thus disposed of.