Copy of UGC fact finding committee report duly produced before the Supreme Court was not provided claiming it is not available - CIC: Replies were inadequate, misleading and blithe, that too with inordinate delay; CIC strictly admonished the UGC
9 Oct, 2022The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 25.08.2020 seeking information on the following three points as under:
“UGC filed an SLP No. 7202 of 2017 titled – University Grants Commission v. Panjab University & Ors. in which it has been mentioned that a Fact Finding Committee had been constituted by UGC to look into the allegations of financial bungling in Panjab University and the Fact Finding Committee had recommended certain steps to rectify and save the University from the financial situation. (Page 19 of SLP)”
- Duly attested copy of the report of the fact finding committee constituted by the UGC chaired by Mrs Mamta Aggarwal, the then Joint Secretary, UGC, New Delhi to look into the allegations of financial bungling in Panjab University under the RTI Act, 2005
- Duly attested copies of the letters vide which the above said report was forwarded to Panjab University authorities.
- Duly attested copies of the letters vide which the above said report was forwarded to other Offices / departments of GoI.
The CPIO vide online reply dated 03.03.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:
“The matter pertain to Panjab University, Chandigarh. Hence, you are requested to approach the concerned University for above said information which is already covered under RTI Act 2005 of concerned university.”
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2020.
The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 06.01.2021, informed as under:
“The relevant information is not available with State University Bureau of UGC. In this regard you are advised to kindly approach for above said information from concerned university, which is also a Public Authority under RTI Act, 2005.”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that no information with respect to the instant RTI Application has been furnished by the Respondent. Further, the replies to RTI Application and First Appeal have also been tendered after unwarranted delays.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought vide instant RTI Application i.e. certified copy a report of fact finding committee constituted by the UGC, chaired by Mrs. Mamta Aggarwal, the then Joint Secretary, UGC, New Delhi and its supporting documents, is not available with the office of UGC, New Delhi.
The Respondent further submitted that they have communicated with the State University Bureau, UGC regarding the averred report but the said report is not available in their office. Further, Mrs. Mamta Aggarwal has also transferred to another department therefore the chances of availability of the said report is very bleak.
The Commission queried the Respondent as to why there has been such inordinate delay in furnishing replies to the Appellant, to which the Respondent could not provide a cogent explanation.
The Commission remarked that Fact finding Committee’s Report which has duly been produced before Hon’ble Supreme Court, is supposed to be available with the office of the Respondent Authority, to which the Respondent submitted that he will again make an effort to locate the desired report, but there is another possibility of it being weeded out.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 10.072022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
This in reference to the notice of hearing 27.06.2022 in Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/111603. It is requested that following submissions in brief, in addition to the averments already made in the Grounds of second appeal in this matter may please be taken on record for kind consideration.
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
- It may please be observed that the information sought vide RTI Application dated 25.08.2020 pertains to the report of a fact finding committed of the UGC, headed by Mrs. Mamta Aggarwal, the then Joint Secretary, UGC, to examine the finalcial bungling and corruption at Panjab University (Kind attention is drawn to the opening paragraph of RTI application.)
- Whereas, UGC/MHRD are the primary funding agencies of Panjab University Chandigarh …..
………..
…………..
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that no information with respect to the instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant. The Commission further observes that the replies furnished by the Respondent were inadequate, misleading and blithe, that too with inordinate delay. The Commission takes grave exception for the above cavalier and irresponsible conduct of the Respondent and it strictly admonishes the Respondent Public Authority for the same. The Commission sternly cautions the Respondent Public Authority that in future, they shall ensure that replies to the RTI Applications shall be provided with mindful approach and within a stipulated time-frame as specified in the provisions of the RTI Act. As regards the information sought vide instant RTI Application, the Respondent submitted that the averred report is not traceable/found. Thus the Commission admonishes the Respondent for poor management of the official records and cautions them to remain careful in future. The Commission further directs the Respondent Public Authority to make effort to search their database/records in a prudent manner to find/locate the averred report and provide the same along with revised reply to the Appellant within 21 days from the date from the date of receipt of this order. In the event, if the information is available with another Department/Ministry, the present CPIO is further directed to obtain the said information under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act and provide a copy of the same to the Appellant with a copy marked to the Commission. On the contrary, if the desired report is still not found in the official records of the Respondent, the Commission deems it fit to direct Dr. Ravindra Kumar, CPIO & Education Officer, University Grants Commission to submit an appropriate affidavit, on non-judicial stamp paper deposing the factum of non-availability of the relevant record as sought in the RTI Application along with the details of efforts made to find/locate the said report. The said affidavit should be submitted to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission further directs the Respondent to provide the record retention schedule and copy of the weeding out report to the Appellant with a copy marked to the Commission, in case the said Report has been weeded out, within a time frame of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The present CPIO is further directed that while complying with the directions of the Commission, all the personal information/identifying particulars of any third parties should be adequately redacted/blackened out. The Commission further directs the present CPIO that no information shall be disclosed to the Appellant which is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rajesh Gill v. University Grants Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/111603, Date of Decision: 22.07.2022