Está en la página 1de 4

1

CentralInformationCommission
RoomNo.307,IIFloor,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCama Place,NewDelhi110066 Telefax:01126180532&01126107254websitecic.gov.in

Appeal:No.CIC/DS/A/2011/000220 Appellant Chandigarh PublicAuthority Chandigarh. andSh. Sh.Amitabawa) DateofHearing DateofDecision Facts: 1. Sh.VinodKumarSharmasubmittedRTIapplication dated 9.7.2010 before the CPIO, Supdt. HomeIII, Chandigarh Administration seeking time etc. pertaining to chargesheets issued to him on 5.10.2004, 9.3.2005 and 31.6.2007 alongwith decision taken on his application dated 5.5.2010 enclosed wherewithasAnnexureA. 2. Vide order dated 10.8.2010, the CPIO denied disclosure of information as requested under Points No.1,2and4oftheRTIapplicationbycitingthe provisionsofSection8(1)(g)and8(1)(h)oftheRTI Act, 2005. The appellant preferred appeal dated 6.9.2010 before the First Appellate Authority which was decided vide FAA order dated 5.10.2010 in which it was recorded that in the matter pertaining to disciplinary inquiry against the appellant the penalty of stoppage of two increments had been imposed by the disciplinary authority. However, on account of the fact that the appellant had filed appeal against the orders of the disciplinary authority, it was held that the proceedings in the case were still not complete and denial of
Appeal:No.CIC/DS/A/2011/000220

: :

Sh.V.K.Sharma, HomeDeptt.(III),

(Sh.AmritPalSharma,CPIO

: :

12May2011 12May2011

information was upheld under the provisions of Section8(1)(g)andSection8(1)(h)oftheAct. 3. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above orders, the appellant challenged them before the Commission by preferring second appeal. The matterwasheardtoday.Bothpartieswerepresentas aboveandpresentedarguments. Theappellantstated with great thrust that penalty had already been awarded and the disciplinary proceedings were complete and over. However, he had sought information from therespondent soas toprepare a wellargued appeal against the penalty imposed upon him which opportunity he had been denied on account of refusal of the information sought by him. He further stated that information provided under Point No. 3 was incomplete and vague. The respondent confirmed that chargesheet dated 5.10.2004 was disposed of and final orders was passed on 4.5.2010 andchargesheetdated9.3.2005wasalsoputtofinal closurethroughorderdated15.7.2010.Theappellant stated that denial of information to him by the respondent was willful and showed malafide intention. The respondent confirmed that the disciplinaryproceedingswerenowoverandtheywere willing to provide full and complete information as soughtbytheappellantinhisRTIapplication. DecisionNotice 4. After hearing both parties and on persuing the facts on record, the Commission notes that even though final orders had been passed and penalty awarded to the appellant well before the orders of the CPIO dated 10.8.2010 and the First Appellate Authority, dated 5.10.2010, they continued to deny disclosureofinformationtotheappellantbyciting Section 8(1)(h) of the Act which allows exemption from disclosure of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecutionofoffenders 5. Therefore, this denial of disclosure is unjustified and does not stand scrutiny of law.
Appeal:No.CIC/DS/A/2011/000220

Accordingly, the respondent is directed to provide full and complete pointwise information to the appellant within one week of receipt of the order. TheCommissionobservesthatinresponsetoPointNo. 3 of the RTI application, CPIO has stated that the applicationoftheappellantdated5.5.2010hasbeen examinedandthesamehasbeenfiledbythecompetent authority. The Commission is in agreement with the appellantthatthisamountstodenialofinformation and respondent is directed to provide full notings pertaining tothedisposal ofthis letter up tothe pointoffinaldecision. Theinformation,asabove, be furnished within one week of the receipt of the orders. 6. Throughthisorder,theCommissionissuesNotice tothethenCPIOtoshowcausewhypenaltyshouldnot be imposed upon him for having wrongly denied the informationtotheappellant.Opportunityofpersonal hearingisprovidedtohimandheisdirectedtoappear beforeCommissionon24.6.2011at12.30PMatUTGuest House,Sector6,Chandigarh. 7. The Commission observes that the then first AppellateAuthoritySmt.PrernaPuriadjudicatedupon the matter without application of mind and clearly showing bias against disclosure of information even though the enquiry was complete and over and final orders had already been passed by the competent authority thereby denying the appellant a fair opportunity of making a well argued appeal against the punishment awarded to him to the next higher authority. UnderthepowersoftheCommissionunder Section 20(2), the Commission recommends controlling authority to issue memo of stricture to her for lapseindischarginghisdutiesasmandatedunderthe RTIAct. (Smt.DeepakSandhu) InformationCommissioner(DS) Authenticatedtruecopy: (T.K.Mohapatra) UnderSecretary&Dy.Registrar
Appeal:No.CIC/DS/A/2011/000220

Copyto: 1. ShriVinodKumarSharma HouseNo.2254,Sector19C, Chandigarh TheCPIO TheSupdt.Home111, ChandigarhAdministrationSectt. Sector19C,UTChandigarh TheAppellateAuthority TheSupdt.Home111, ChandigarhAdministrationSectt. Sector19C,UTChandigarh ShriBhupinerSingh JointTransportCommissioner Govt.ofHaryana,Chandigarh TheCommissionerTransport Govt.ofHaryana,Chandigarh (TheofficersmentionedatSl.Nos.4&5 orderstobeservedthroughUTSecretariat, Chandigarh)

2.

3.

4.

5.

Appeal:No.CIC/DS/A/2011/000220

También podría gustarte