FAA advised the APIO to provide a copy of Inquiry Report as and when received from the concerned which was not followed - CIC: the appellant has right to have a copy of the inquiry report; SCN issued to PIO for penalty; compensation of Rs.1,000 granted
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Principal and Mr. Atul Jaiswal, Directorate of Education, RTI Branch, DDE (NorthEast), GNCTD, Delhi.
2. The appellant submitted that through his RTI application dated 22-1-2013, he had sought information on the status of inquiry initiated against him and copies of the feedbacks collected by the Inquiry officer from the students, etc. PIO replied on 20-2-2013. Not satisfied, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA, who by his order dated 8-4-2013, advised the APIO to provide a copy of the inquiry report as and when received from the concerned. Claiming dissatisfaction at the information supplied by the respondent authority, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission.
3. Heard the submissions made by both the parties. The appellant wanted to know how long the inquiry against him would continue. He also sought copies of feedback forms collected by the Inquiry officer with a belief that such forms could be his defending evidence. He was given a reply on 20-2-2013 by the PIO that the inquiry has been completed and the report is being submitted to the competent authority, along with the feedback forms. On 23-2-2013, that is after 3 days, the Competent Authority in his file noting, which is shown to the Commission, has recorded as under: “In accordance with the written statements of the students, the teacher is liked by most students being taught by him. However, very few have shown their dislike for his teaching or being strict concerning attendance of students. According to statement of Master Prem Sagar of VIIID, attached at p.10/c, a teacher called Sombir had instructed him to complain against Sh. V.M.Malik (TGT Maths) & the same student was beaten by Sombir when the child committed a mistake. It seems there is some kind of politics at play in the school because of groupism and there is an attempt to vilify the teacher Sh.V.M. Malik. Most of the students have good to say for him except a few. Some of them have written against his teaching but none against his using abusive language. In my view the charges seem manipulated & do not hold much truth. They should be dropped.” The appellant was to be intimated about the conclusion of the inquiry and dropping of charges against him. He was put to serious suffering, agony and anguish for the last 2 years. The First Appellate Authority advised the APIO on 8-4-2013 to provide a copy of the Inquiry Report as and when received from the concerned. Actually, by that time, that is on 23-2-2013 itself, the inquiry was completed and the charges against the appellant were dropped. This fact was not put up even before the FAA. This amounts to suppression of vital information to the FAA. It also amounts to noncompliance of FAA orders because the FAA suggested to give a copy of inquiry report as and when received. The respondents did not give any bit of information to the appellant even after he filed the 2nd appeal before the Commission. Today, that is on the day of hearing, the relevant file noting is produced before the Commission by the respondent authority which discloses the dropping of charges on 23-2-2013 itself.
4. It is very pathetic nonresponsive attitude of the respondent/department against a teacher who was liked by most of the students and he is made to suffer without any relief or information about the dropping of charges against him. The teacher/appellant wanted the Commission to impose penalty against the concerned officers for putting him up with such a suffering.
5. The Commission states that the appellant has right to have a copy of the inquiry report, whether it is favorable or not. He has this right both under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and even before, under the principles of natural justice, especially when the inquiry into some allegations was completed. His right, in this case, was denied at least for a substantive period. The PIO’s harassing attitude is evident from the denial of this right to the appellant, suppression of this information from the First Appellate Authority. The respondent/PIO Mr. S.C.Gupta is hereby directed to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for not furnishing the information to the appellant, noncompliance of the FAA order and for suppressing the fact of dropping of charges against the appellant before the FAA. His explanation should reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent authority is further directed to supply a certified copy of the inquiry report, certified copies of feed backs from the students, to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. The Commission also directs the respondent authority to pay a token amount of Rs.1,000/( One thousand) as compensation to the appellant, for the losses he suffered for the nonsupply of information about dropping of charges against him.
7. The Commission orders accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Shri Vinod Kumar Malik v. Directorate of Education(North East), GNCTD in File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001474SA