CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August KrantiBhawan, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi Tel :

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August KrantiBhawan, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi Tel : Appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2016/ Appellant: Respondent: Mrs. Anita Chhabra, H. No. 19, Type-3, Sec.1, Sadiq Nagar, Nerw Delhi Central Public Information Officer, Director, Rajya Sabha Sectt., Room No.006, Ground Flr., Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi Date of Hearing: Dated of Decision: Facts: ORDER 1. The appellant filed RTI application dated seeking information regarding compliance of CIC order dated ; officials on which responsibility has been fixed by Dr. D.B. Singh, Investigation Officer. The appellant is also seeking copy of complete file noting, certified copy of correspondence, punishment given to the charged officers etc. 2. The CPIO responded on and and provided documents containing 69 pages to the appellant. The appellant filed first appeal dated with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on The appellant filed second appeal on before the Commission on the ground to initiate action u/s 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act. 1

2 Hearing: 3. Both the parties were personally present in the hearing. 4. The appellant had sent her written submissions dated and , which is taken on record. 5. The appellant stated that the respondent has not complied with the order of Commission dated in appeal no. CIC/SM/A/2011/ The appellant alleged that certain illegal activities were taking place at Parliamentary Residential Complex, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi by some officials of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats. Despite intimations, no step was taken to stop the illegal activities by the members of the RWA. The appellant stated that the members of the RWA forcibly entered in her premises on and threatened to implicate her husband into some police case. They used threatening and abusive language against her husband. 7. The appellant stated that she had lodged complaint against these members of the RWA with the local police as well as with the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat. 8. The appellant stated that various follow-ups/rti application were made by her to ascertain follow up action taken on her complaint(s). 9. The appellant stated the present RTI application has arisen from the RTI application dated that she had filed seeking information regarding attested copies of her complaints and action taken thereon. The appellant stated that she was not satisfied with the CPIO/FAA reply and filed second appeal before the Commission which was listed for hearing on The then CIC vide his order dated held as, this is rather very surprising that letters marked from one section to another within the Rajya Sabha Secretariat should go missing. This requires to be enquired into by the competent authority because this shows very poorly on the record keeping in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. We would like to direct the CPIO to place a copy of this letter before the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha for him to get this entire matter enquired into and fix responsibility for the loss of these letters. As far as the appellant is concerned, for her knowledge and satisfaction, we would 2

3 like the CPIO to write to her within 10 working days from receiving of this order categorically to state about the non availability of these two particular communications. 10. The appellant stated that in compliance of the above said orders of the then CIC, Dr. D.B. Singh, Additional Secretary was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. From the date of orders of CIC, for more than 2 years, no outcome was informed to her regarding the inquiry. She stated that on , she was given inquiry report containing 69 pages. The appellant stated that on perusal of the inquiry report, she found that the Inquiry Officer has not fixed responsibility against erring officers. 11. The appellant alleged that the respondent had denied that the Director (PE) had not maintained any diary register for entries of records, but in one of the letters of the respondent s official, it is clearly written that Director (PE) diary was thoroughly checked. The appellant alleged that the respondent had given fabricated, false and misleading replies/information to her. She further stated that the respondent never lodged any FIR for the missing documents. 12. The appellant stated that she has been following up this matter from the year 2007 but no action has been taken till date. 13. The appellant stated that being aggrieved that the respondent has not fully complied with the Commission s order dated , she had filed the present RTI application with respect to the non-compliance of Commission s order. 14. The respondent stated that they have fully complied with the Commission s order dated A detailed inquiry was conducted in the matter and complete details on file including inquiry report, notesheets, etc. has already been furnished to the appellant. 15. The respondent stated that similar matter has already been heard by the Commission on in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/ and finally decided on vide which the then CIC held as, We have been unable to find any cause for suspecting destruction/ tampering with a record as alleged. The mislaying of a reference from DoPT is admitted, and is ofcourse 3

4 regrettable. However, on the basis of the above and our having been satisfied that such information as is held by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat in dealing with Smt. Chhabra s case has, in fact, been provided, there remains no further reason for our intervention in the matter. The appellant s protestations on the announcement of the decision that they have not got justice invites our sympathy. But it requires to be understood that it is not the business of this Commission to give justice, which is the province of the judiciary. In the present case we have been unable to find any information providable under the law, which has been refused. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 16. The respondent referred to a Commission s decision in appeal no. CIC/AD/A/2013/ dated and stated that such repeated or unending stream of questions being sought from same or different public authorities has to be stopped. It attracts the provision of resjudicata. 17. The respondent stated that the appellant till now had filed 98 RTI applications. Each and every RTI application of the appellant has been dealt with due seriousness. The respondent stated that perusal of her files indicates that it is her personal grievance that is being pursued so vigorously and no public interest is involved in matter. 18. The respondent stated that complete information has already been furnished to the appellant. He further stated that the arguments made by the appellant during the hearing are covered and the answers to those arguments are clearly indicated in the inquiry report. It has been categorically stated that the Director(PE) did not maintain any diary register during his tenure. The Inquiry Officer found that this was a serious lacuna, which has now been corrected. 19. The respondent stated that affidavit to the effect that the letters of the appellant were missing has also been given to her. 20. During the hearing, the respondent stated that the appellant is asking for copy of her own complaint letter and action taken thereupon. These letters were, however, missing from their record. The matter has been enquired into 4

5 and corrective action have been taken. All this information has been provided to the appellant. He stated that the appellant had filed 98 RTI applications. Instead, she could have easily give her letters again at any point of time in order to pursue action in the matter. Discussion/ observation: 21. From the perusal of the records/inquiry report, it is seen that the respondent had given detailed report (containing 69 pages) along with notesheets, statements of their officials, etc. to the appellant, which inter-alia covers explanation on every subject as raised by the appellant during the hearing. Therefore, the respondent has complied with the Commission s order dated The information sought in the instant RTI application has been fully provided to her. Decision: 22. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost. Authenticated true copy (Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar 5