CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003419/11145
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003419
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. E. K. Rangari,
Flat No. 28, Bld. No. 3,
Indraprastha Nagar, Near Indira Park,
Hadapsar Gadital, Pune- 28
Maharashtra.
Respondent : Mr. Lalit Gulati
Public Information Officer &
Chief Manager (Finance & Allied Services)
Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development
Corporation, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
18-A, DDA, SCO Complex, Defence Colony,
New Delhi- 110024
RTI application filed on : 05/02/2010
PIO replied : 15/02/2010, 19/04/2010, 23/04/2010
First appeal filed on : 17/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 16/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 01/09/2010
Information sought :
1. Supply the Annual Confidential Reports of Shri K.B. Sharma Chief Manager ( Adventure Tourism
) , of Shri C.P. Handa Dy Manager and Shi Praveen Giri (Bill Clerk ), and all employees of
DTTDC Ltd., for the last 10 years till date.
2. Supply the detailed information about the Departmental Enquiry regarding serious lapses and
Financial irregularities committed by him including its final result. Specify whether Shri Giri
( Praveen) is slapped with any punishment as per Rule 14 or 11 of the CCA Conduct Rules 1965
of the said enquiry.
3. Furnish information regards to net profit or loss of revenue earnings to the DTTDC Ltd. During
tenure of Shri K.B. Sharma from the year 1991 to 2006 ( in Rupees, figures of each year be given
separately) and also details of revenue profit or loss be given in money with effect from the date of
his taking charge of this division/ section till this date.
4. Supply adverse remarks of Shri K.B. Sharma by his superior or earlier CMDS Managing Directors
or now working Managing Directors Mrs. Rina Rai as per question 3.
5. Details about the action taken against Shri K.B. Sharma as per the Enquiry in the matter of
adulterated liquor bottles, complaint made by the Appellant. State the reason of not taking up the
case for imposing punishment against said K.B. Sharma under specified Rules as well as the time
within which such action is to be taken when not absolved as per the Office Order of Shri Madan
Rai of DTTDC Ltd.
6. Specify the ground for lost of Movement Register pertaining to the period 23/07/2003 to
26/07/2003.
Page 1 of 3
7. Specify on whose statement Departmental Enquiry was held as per the order to be made for the
lost/ untraceable mystery of Movement Register by the CIC (Mrs. Dixit) and also provide certified
copy of these statements so recorded and menion if they were made verbally along with the name
of the person who was supposed to conduct the enquiry and specify if the Enquiry Officer held
someone responsible for the loss of Transit Register as well as the date and year of its being lost.
Also specify whether Shri Mohan Khanna has ever made any report about the register being lost or
missing.
8. Provide details if the managers and employees involved failed to discharge their function properly
and state whether Dy Manager informed about the loss of the register to his superior during the
said period and whether that superior exercised his duty by asking the juniors concerned or not.
9. State whether loss of public document such as ” Movement Register ” is/was the only register out
of several registers. Also name the documents which have been lost so far by K.B. Sharma in his
tenure.
10. Specify whether missing register of transit can be regenerated from their mirror images in record
of inspection every month by Shri Mohan Khanna as per regular monthly reports of his
inspections.
11. Specify whether FIR could be filed against Shri Giri Bill Clerk for causing loss of the Movement
Register of the concerned period after conducting thorough enquiry.
12. Specify whether statements of these persons can be got on affidavit regarding loss of the
Movement Register.
PIO’s reply :
In response to question 1 the PIO said that the issue has been already decided in the decision of vide
no. CIC/AD/A/X/09/0044/AD dated 28/01/2009 wherein the same was denied due to third party
information. In response to question 2 the report can be obtained after deposition of Rs. 46 ( 2 Rs. Per
page ). In response to question 3 the matter is not in the purview of SPIO-I and may be pursued with
SPIO-VI (Finance). And in response to question 5 no case has been registered against Shri K.B.
Sharma, Chief Manager and references issued by Ministry of Personnel are enclosed. No case of
disciplinary action has been registered against Shri Madan Rai, Dy Manager and in regard to question
6-12 report of the committee constituted for the purpose has already been sent to the appellant.
Note : SPIO-VI replied providing information under RTI Act’05 vide RTI ID No. 346 pertaining to
point 3 is enclosed.
Note : SPIO-IV replied that the copy of the report of inspection regarding the matter of lost
Movement register has been provided to the applicant on his appeal to CIC.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and not specific information furnished by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
“The appeals No. 55 and 56 are merged, whereas the Appellant was given an opportunity to appear in
person and to explain in simple words, with clarity as to which kind of information is still left to be
provided to him and says that it appears from the papers submitted by appellant that his intentions are not
focused on seeking specific information but rather complicating proceedings and diverting the issues
using legal terminology. The appellant is also given an opportunity to inspect concerned files/ records
available with the SPIOs in order to get the desired information on any working day ( or before
25.06.2010 5:00 P.M. )
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information by the PIOs
Page 2 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. B. L. Indora, Chief Manager (Finance) on behalf of Mr. Lalit Gulati , Public
Information Officer & Chief Manager (Finance & Allied Services);
The Appellant has filed an RTI application running into 06 pages. Some of the queries are framed as
allegations and the PIO appears to have given information available on the records. It is difficult for the
Commission to understand what information he has not received.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (Su)
Page 3 of 3