Information regarding selection of candidates in PGT entrance examination - FAA did not pass any order after hearing the first appeal - CIC: compensation of Rs. 1,500/- awarded as appellant had to incur avoidable expenditure; to recover it from offender
Information regarding selection of candidates in PGT entrance examination - FAA did not pass any order after hearing the first appeal - CIC: appellant was a resident of a remote area in HP and has have to incur avoidable expenditure in pursuing the matter, compensation of Rs. 1,500/- awarded; Adviser to the Administrator to take suitable action to recover the same from the salary of the offending officer
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 12 April 2013 before the CPIO, O/o Director Public Instruction (S), Chandigarh seeking details regarding the selection of candidates in the PGT entrance Examination as conducted by the Education Department, Chandigarh through multiple points.
2. Vide Order dated 18 May 2013, CPIO provided point wise information to the Appellant.
3. Appellant preferred first Appeal dated 7 June 2013 to the First Appellate Authority.
4. FAA did not provide any reply to the Appellant.
5. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today. Both parties, as above, appeared in person and made submissions. It was submitted by the appellant that on receiving notice for appearance in response to his first appeal, he appeared before FAA on 21.8.2012 but no orders was issued following the hearing. Therefore, the appellant sent reminder dated 13.9.2012 to the FAA requesting for issuance of the order but on not receiving the same, he preferred the second appeal before the Commission. Respondent stated that he was the current FAA and on learning of the pending second appeal, he took several steps to contact the appellant and after speaking to him on telephone and obtaining his email address, passed order on 3.12.2013 and also provided information to the appellant via email on 6.12.2013. Appellant did not contest the above statement and was appreciative of the efforts put up by the current DPI/FAA.
7. After hearing both the parties, Commission is satisfied that now information, as sought by the appellant, has been provided to him on 6.12.2013. Further, we are constrained to record our displeasure on the manner in which the former FAA Shri Upkar Singh (currently Director IT, U.T., Chd.) has failed to discharge his duties as laid down in the RTI Act. It is established that he did not pass any order after hearing the first appeal of the appellant on 21.8.2012 and that copy of such order is not available on the file of the Department. Further, FAA failed to even respond to the reminder of the appellant to issue such order thereby compounding the error. On account of this negligence on the part of the then FAA, the appellant who is resident of a remote area in Himachal Pradesh has have to incur avoidable expenditure in pursuing the matter and also put to physical and mental harassment. Therefore, Commission directs that compensation of Rs. 1,500/be awarded to the appellant and the amount will be disbursed to him by the Public Authority within three weeks of receipt of the order. Commission invites attention of the Adviser to the Administrator to take notice of the lapse on the part of the former FAA while discharging his official duties under the RTI Act thereby causing financial loss to the Govt. and take suitable action to recover the same from the salary of the offending officer under intimation to the Commission.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Satish Kumar v. O/o Director Public Instruction(S) in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002447