CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001876/8989Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001876
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Smt. Anguri Devi W/O
Lt. Bhura Lal
Village P.O Savith Nagar
Bulandshehar Zila
Uttar Pradesh-203129
Respondent (1) : Public Information Officer
Director General of Employment and Training (DGET),
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi.
(2) Mr. Birendra Bahadur Singh
Public Information Officer & Technical Officer
Directorate of Employment and Training,
Guru Gobind Singh Marg,
Lucknow- 2266004 (UP)
RTI application filed on : 27/10/2009
PIO replied : 03/11/2009
First appeal filed on : 07/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 21/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 17/02/2010
Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding -
1. Whether the complaint letter dated 06.10.09 has been received by your Dept.?
2. If yes, then please specify the action taken on it.
3. If any investigation has been carried out please mention the name of the investigating officer along
with the photocopies of the order asking for the investigation to be carried out.
4. Please provide the photocopies if the officer has presented any report in consideration to the
investigation carried out by him.
5. If no action has been taken in relation to the investigation done, please specify the reasons for the
same.
6. Reasons for refusal of the Complaint letter dated 06.10.09 by DJET.
7. Name and designation of the PIO in favour of whom the IPO will be given.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
PIO/Director Sh.V.K Singh vide his letter dated 03.11.09 transferred the case to Sh. R.L Singh,
PIO/Director, DJET, HQ, Labour and Employment Ministry, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New
Delhi, who further transferred it vide his letter dated 17.12.2009 to the Director, DJET, Guru Gobind
Singh Marg, Lucknow-226004 (U.P).
Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA transferred the RTI application to the Director Directorate of Employment and Training, Guru
Gobind Singh Marg, Lucknow- 2266004 (UP) by his letter of 17/12/2009.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 16/08/2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari representing Smt. Anguri Devi;
Respondent: Absent;
“The appellant states that no information has been received by him so far. The Commission directs
the Director Directorate of Employment and Training, Guru Gobind Singh Marg, Lucknow- 2266004 (UP
to send the information to the appellant.”
Decision dated 16/08/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Guru Gobind Singh Marg,
Lucknow- 2266004 (UP) is directed to send the complete information to the appellant
before 10 September 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 24 September 2010 at 2.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.”
Facts leading to showcause hearing on 26/05/2011:
On 24/09/2010, the PIO did not appear and the Commission did not receive any written
explanations from him for delay in providing the information to the Appellant. On the basis of which the
Commission again issued another showcause notice to the PIO to appear before the Commission on
23/11/2010. However, the PIO again did not appear before the Commission on 23/11/2010 and the
Commission did not receive any written explanations from him for explaining his absence on 24/09/2010
and on 23/11/2010. The Commission also directed him to provide the complete information sought in
queries 6 and 7 of the RTI application dated 27/10/2009 to the Appellant before 18/10/2010 with a copy to
the Commission. However, a representative of the Appellant appeared on 23/11/2010 and submitted that
no information has been provided to him after the Commission’s direction.
Page 2 of 3
Therefore, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the complete information sought in queries 6 and
7 of the RTI application dated 27/10/2009 to the Appellant before 20/05/2011 with a copy to the
Commission. Further, the Commission decided to schedule another hearing on 26/05/2011 at 02:30 pm.
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 26/05/2011:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Birendra Bahadur Singh, Technical Officer & PIO;
The Respondent states that the RTI application has been filed with Director General of
Employment and Training (DGET), Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, Delhi. The information sought was regarding a complaint filed by the Appellant on 06/10/2009 at
the office of the DGET. The PIO DGET wrongly transferred the RTI application to the PIO at Lucknow
Office. Whereas the entire information sought by the Appellant was of the DGET office at New Delhi.
PIO Lucknow has transferred the RTI application to PIO DGET New Delhi on 08/09/2010. The
Commission therefore directs the PIO Director General of Employment and Training (DGET), Ministry of
Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, Delhi to send the complete information to
the Appellant based on available records.
Regarding the complaint of the Appellant the Commission directs that apart from providing the
information sought by the Appellant the information shall also be provided to her in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
Adjunct decision:
The PIO Director General of Employment and Training (DGET), New Delhi is directed to
provide the information to the Appellant before 15 June 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO,
DGET New Delhi within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20
(1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to
show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
PIO, DGET New Delhi will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 22 June 2011
at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(VN)
Page 3 of 3