Information regarding study leave & reemployment after resignation - PIO: there is no fixed time for accepting the resignation & no provision for reemployment - CIC: Frame the policy regarding time limit to intimate a teacher about his leave / resignation
1. Appellant through his RTI application sought information with respect to study leave and reemployment after resignation of a “teacher” employed with Directorate of Education, does department give paid study leave, what are the conditions for giving leave, conditions for rejection of leave etc, through 10 points. PIO enclosed the information on point no 2,3,6,8 & 10 and for point no 4,5 & 9 replied that information is not covered under section 2(f). Being unsatisfied with PIO reply, the appellant made First Appeal. First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Unsatisfied with FAA order, appellant approach the Commission through this present second appeal.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
2. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant’s father submitted that his daughter/appellant who was working as teacher with the respondent authority, applied for study leave on 272007 for doing M.Phil abroad, but she was not intimated about the sanction of the leave until she had to leave the country on 2792007 for joining M.Phil in UK. 23 days after she left for the studies, the respondent authority intimated that the appellant’s request for study leave was rejected. Her absence from duty will be treated as EOL (Extra Ordinary Leave or Leave without pay). In view of this, the appellant resigned to the post on 822008 as a protest and her resignation letter was sent from abroad. Her resignation was not accepted by the Competent authority and was kept pending for 2 years and 7 days. After her resignation was ultimately accepted by the Competent authority and when she stands resigned, the appellant applied for reemployment to the post. Her request for reemployment was not accepted by the respondent authority. That is why the appellant was seeking information as per her RTI application under reference.
3. The respondent officer, Mr. A.K.Goel, ADE submitted pointwise, that there is no fixed time for accepting the resignation and also submitted that she resigned while staying abroad. There is also no provision for reemployment of the teachers who resigned.
4. The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record observes that the appellant was harassed by the respondent authority by not replying to her study leave request and also by not accepting her resignation in a fixed time. The Commission therefore, directs the PIO to show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on him for not furnishing information on points Nos. 5 and 9 of the RTI application within the prescribed period. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the Directorate of Education to frame the policy regarding time limit limit to intimate a teacher about his/her leave request or about accepting the resignation of a teacher. Such a policy is mandated under section 4(1)(c) Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; of the RTI Act and should be available in the public domain. The Commission further directs the PIO to furnish the information sought by the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(M Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Ms. Nitu Duggal v. Directorate of Education (HQ) in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/001619