Whether JNU has any special powers to relax condition of “Leave sanction & relieving order” in relating to serving Government officers - Information regarding Pankaj KP Shreyaskar was sought - CIC: Show cause notice issued for imposing penalty
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Jagadish Singh, Mr. Deepak Arya, Prof.Amit Prakash, Mr. P.K.Maurya and Dr.P.Puneeth.
2. The appellant wanted the following information.
A) Whether Ph.D from Centre for Study of Law & Governance is available from the year 2010-11 till date and details thereof with eligibility criteria for serving Government employees.
B) Whether a serving Govt. employee can be admitted to the above course without obtaining “Leave Sanction Relieving Order” particularly when he is not employed in a research and teaching institution and continue to attend regular office during day hours.
C) Whether JNU has any special powers to relax condition of “Leave sanction and relieving order” in relating to serving Govt officers not employed in research and teaching intuitions and if so, copy of relevant order, circular, notification, rules and regulations and details thereon along with list of students who had been given such relaxation in academic session 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.
D) Information whether relaxation referred to in clause© has been given to Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, student of Centre for Study of Law and Governance. If so, copy of relaxation order and all records and documents, correspondences for relaxation given to him since he is serving as government employee in Central Information Commission on regular basis and is continuing to serve there for the last 7 years.
E) Copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of RTI file in which the RTI application is dealt with. The appellant had filed 2nd appeal before the Commission after filing first appeal on the CPIO’s order.
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The respondent officers submitted that they have furnished the information as available with them. The appellant submitted that the information furnished is incorrect, incomplete and misleading. The appellant had explained the information, which he required, by reading the application and pointing out the deficiencies in the information furnished by the respondent authority. The respondent authority admitted that the Ph.D programme is a full time course and once admission is given, it is for the Government employee to seek the permission/complete the formalities from his employer. In this connection, the appellant alleged that the respondent authority is trying to protect Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar, who was working as Joint Secretary at the time of admission into the above said course.
4. The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, directs the respondent authority to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them for giving incorrect, incomplete and misleading information to the appellant. Their explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
5. The Commission orders accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: R.K.Jain Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University in Case No. CIC/RM/A/2014/000244SA