CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00263 dated 6.3.2007

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19

Appellant - Sh. Harish Kumar

Respondent - Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Estt. Dep’t

Facts:
By an application of 29.11.06 Shri Harish Kumar of Shivaji Road, Delhi
sought information on eight questions from MCD (Estt.) arising from the
following, through an application assigned ID No. 295:
“What is transfer? When and how it is done? To effect it what
should be the main reasons? The period after which transfer can be
made, for what period it can be made and in which areas and
Deptts. of M.C.D. it can be made? Please explain.

Please supply certified copy of office order relating to non transfer

of Shri S. P. Bhargav, LDC stationed at Sadar Paharganj Zone
w.e.f. 11.8.97. “

To this he received a point wise reply from Ms. Renu K. Jagdev, Director on
2.1.07 as follows :
S.No. Information required Answer
1 What is transfer? When and how it is Shfting and posting from
done? To effect it what should be the one place to another is
main reasons? The period after called transfer.
which transfer can be made, for what
period it can be made and in which
areas and Deptts. of M.C.D. it can be
made? Please explain.

Please supply certified copy of

office order relating to non transfer
of Shri S. P. Bhargav, LDC
stationed at Sadar Paharganj
Zone w.e.f. 11.8.97
2 What is vice versa? How and why it When employee posted at
is done? In which departments/zones one place is transferred to
and for what posts this Vice versa is another place and that man
applicable? Please explain. is posted in his place, it is

1
 called vice versa transfer.
As per Orders of Commissioner vide
No.PAC/256/2006 dated List of employees transfer
19.7.2006.how many officers/workers under vice versa after
have been transferred under Vice 19.7.06 is attached.
Versa. Please furnish their names,
designations, present Deptt.,
Deptt./Zone transferred from
w.e.f.19.7.06 till date of furnishing the
information.
3 What is discharge on administrative Discharge on
grounds? How, why and on what administrative grounds is
grounds it is done in which done by competent officer
Deptts./Zones.After issue of of the Deptt. On the basis
Commissioner’s Office Order No. of unsatisfactory work,
PAC/RK/37/2001 dated 13.7.2001 conduct and habits of an
from 1.1.06 till the date of furnishing employee. Details can be
information how many officers/workers collected from Head of
have been discharged on concerned Department.
administrative grounds from different
Deptts./Zones? Their names,
designation, administrative reasons on
which they have been repatriated to
their original Deptts. May be furnished
alongwith copy of office orders.
Thereafter in which Deptt/Zone, they
were deployed, may kindly be
intimated.
4 Are the orders of the Commissioner Still applicable.
issued vide No.PAC/RK/37/100` dated
13.7.01 and PAC/256/2006 dated
19.7.06 still valid? If not, then a copy of
order quashing these orders may be
supplied.
5 If any Departmental Officer/worker Please study Central Civil
defies the orders of Commission, then Services (Conduct) Rules.
what action can be taken against him
under MCD rules. If action can be
taken against them, then rules/sub
rules under which action can be taken
may be intimated.
6 Kindly supply certified copy of It is not related to Central
complete file alongwith noting of Establishment Deptt.
FNKSV/MA/2006/0002 which is based
on Central Information Commission’s
order dated 27.3.06

2
 7 Please supply certified copy of Office Is attached.
Order PAC/RK/37/2001 dated 23.7.01.
8 On whose recommendations Action is taken against
suspension / dismissal / /Memo is employees on the basis of
issued ? What should be the reasons their faults and is taken
for issuance of such orders? After according to
issue of such Memos what facilities rules/directions issued from
are stopped and what facilities time to time by Govt. of
continue to be provided and on what India.
reasons and what type of action can
be taken afresh. Please supply
details.

Objecting to the information provided to point Nos. 1 to 6, as being either

incomplete or incorrect, Shri Harish Kumar moved his first appeal on 20.1.07
upon which by his order of 9.12.07 Shri K. D. Akolia, Addl. Commissioner (Health
& Estt.) and First Appellate Authority held as follows :
“It was decided that the information available in the CED, in respect
of points mentioned in the appeal, may be made available to the
appellant, and whatever record, CD etc. is not available, it should
be clarified to the appellant.”

In compliance with this order Ms. Renu K. Jagdev Director (Personnel), in a

letter of 15.12.’07, expatiated further clarifications through six points, dis-satisfied
with which Shri Harish Kumar moved a second appeal before us with the
following prayer:
“Please provide me full information as already directed by the First
Appellate Authority to PIO vide order No.
894/Addl.Comr./H/2006/09-02-2007 and the PIO was agreed to
provide point wise information discuss in detail between the First
Appellate Authority, PIO and the appellant in the chamber of Shri K.
D. Akolia on dt. 9.2.2007 at Ambedkar Stadium, New Delhi. I may
kindly be given opportunity of being heard in person or through my
authorized representative before any adverse decision is taken in
this matter.”

In this he specifically asked for a personal hearing.

In response to our appeal notice, by a letter of 19.12.’07 endorsed to

appellant Shri Harish Kumar, Director (Personnel) Central Estt. Department,

3
MCD has addressed each issue raised in the appeal and on the question of
compliance with the orders of the First Appellate Authority as follows :
S.No. Information required
1. Shri K. D. Akolia directed the
PIO to provide the copy of the
stay order of Shri S. P.
Bhargav working in S. P. Zone
since 1997 or transferred the
concerned official with
immediate effect & provide a
copy of transfer order to the
application @ 2/- per page the
PIO and applicant both was
agreed for the same before the
appellate authority. The
appellate was assured to
provide the full information
alongwith the order number of
the appeal, which was
discussed in the chamber of
Shri K. D. Akolia. The
information was to be provided
in accordance to the agreed
discussion. But in the given
information, the norms &
decision of the discussion are
totally changed by the PIO
towards the opposite direction.
PIO neither provided the copy
of stay order of Shri S. p.
Bhargav working in S. P. Zone
since 1997 nor transferred the
concerned official as yet.
2. Partly information provided by
the PIO Shri Daya Nand
Gautam/ AA&C. (S. P. Zone)
and Shri Ram Rattan
Bhardwaj/ AO (S. P. Zone)
were transferred under Vice
Versa policy. Shri Daya
Nand Gautam joined as AO (S.
P. Zone) in place of Shri Ram
Rattan Bhardwaj/ AO (S. P.
Zone) in place of Shri Daya
Nand Gautam/ AA &C. (S. P.
4
Answer
The reply is reiterated. Further
as per orders dated 9.2.07 (page
8/c) of First Appellate Authority,
the PIO was required to given
information as available in CED
whatever record, CD etc. is not
available. The applicant has
already been informed vide PIO
reply letter No. PA/D(P)/ CED/
2007/I. D. NO. 497 dated
10.07.07 (page 7/c) that Shri S.
P. Bhargav, LDC has already
been transferred from Gen. Br./
S. P. Zone to DEMS (HQ) vice
Shri Rajbir Chopra & vice versa
vide O. O. No. F. 1/1/2007/ CED
(C-1)/ DA/II/51/13842 dated
11.6.07. Consequent upon his
promotion to the post of UDC
vide office order dated 16.10.07
(page 5/c Sl. No. 32) Shri S. P.
Bhargve, was posted in Accounts
Office (HQ). Also the applicant
is insisting for providing the copy
of stay order of Shri S. P.
Bhargav working in S. P. Zone as
per section 4(1) (d) of RTI, 2005
administrative reasoning is
provided to affected persons.
It is submitted that with the
approval of Competent Authority
and in the exigency of work, Shri
Daya Nand Gautam, AA&C/ SP
Zone was transferred and posted
as AO/SP Zone vice Shri Ram
Rattan, AO & Vice versa vide
CED’s office order No. F 13 (1)/
CED/(III)/06/31/27588- 606 dated
01.9.06 (page 3/c). In
compliance of the said order and
after having been relieved from
 Zone) Till date and at 0present A&C Department, Shri Daya
one vacant post of AA &C in S. Nand Gautam had joined his
P. Zone. Hence the transfer duties as AO/SPZ w.e.f. 14.9.06,
does not falls under vice versa notified vide office order dated
policy and it also challenges 18.9.06 (Page 2/c). Further, Shri
the order of Commissioner Ram Rattan had also join the
/MCD No. PSC/256/2006 A&C Department w.e.f. 5.9.06,
dated 19.7.06 vide which no notified vide office order dated
transfer has been made upto 29.9.06 (page 1/c). As the
31.03.07. compliance of the transfer order
dated 1.9.06 have been made by
the Department concerned, the
appeal of the applicant doesn’t
have merit.
3. Partly information provided by No such separate list is being
the PIO. PIO have not maintained. Further, no
provided the list of the official compilation of information is
who have been relieved by the envisaged under Right to
department on administrative Information Act, 2005.
grounds. As per
Commissioner/ MCD orders
No. PSC/RK/37/2001 dated
17.7.2001, no department shall
relieve its officials on
administrative grounds. In
exceptional cases, however
the concerned department
may send a request top CED
for transfer such an official.
But, the fact to this that the
officials will be relieved on
administrative grounds. The
PIO neither provided the list of
officials who have been
relieved on administrative
grounds nor further posting of
the officials who joined in CED
on administrative grounds.
W.e.f 1.1.06 to till date as
directed by the first appellate
authority to the PIO. The PIO
And applicant (both) was
agreed for the same.
4. Partly information provided by As replied in points No. 1 to 3 as
the PIO and rest of the reply above.
pertains to point No. 1 to 3,

5
5. No information provided by the
PIO as per directions passed
by Shri K. D. Akolia to PIO
certified copy of Central Civil
Service (Rule) and to be
provided to the applicant @
Rs. 2/- as per page and the
PIO Was agreed to provide full
information to the applicant @
2/- Rs. per page and the
applicant was also agreed for
the same but, the PIO is failed
to provided the same.
6. No information provided by the
PIO except one page about
Right to Information. In
appeal, Shri K. D. Akolia
directed the PIO to provide the
copy of CIC order dated
27.3.06 and certified copy of
complete file No.
CED.MA/2006/ 0002 and the
PIO was agreed to provide the
full information to the applicant
@ Rs. 2/- per page and the
applicant was also agreed for
the same, but the PIO
changed the direction totally
passed by the First Appellate
Authority.
The First Appellate Authority has
ordered that the information
available in CED be made
available to the applicant and
whatever record, CD etc. is not
available, may be clarified to the
appellant. Therefore, the reply
already given to the applicant
vide ID No. 295 is reiterated.
However, the First Appellate
Authority not directed the PIO to
provide certified copy of CCS
(Rule) as the same is made
available with the DOPT
Department, Govt. of India.
The First Appellate Authority has
ordered that the information
available in CED be made
available to the applicant and
whatever record, CD etc, is not
available, may be clarified to the
appellant. Further, as per record,
there is no file bearing this No.
CED/MA/2006/0002.

The appeal was heard on 18.2.08. The following are present :

Appellant
Shri Harish Kumar

Respondents
Shri Madan Mohan, Asstt. Commr. (Estt) MCD
Shri Rajesh Kr. Manoche, Head Clerk.

Appellant Shri Harish Kumar affirmed having received letters of both

15.2.07 and 19.12.07. However, he remonstrated that the responses received

6
were not in compliance with the orders of the First Appellate Authority, something
that the PIO was not entitled to do.

Respondent Shri Madan Mohan, Asstt. Commr. (Estt) MCD submitted that
such information as is available in the Estt. Department of MCD has been
provided. On the specific question of the transfer of Shri S. P. Bhargav LDC he
explained that there has been no non compliance with the orders of the Addl.
Commr. but only action under the rules of the MCD.

DECISION NOTICE

It is not for this Commission to go into the details of compliance of

administrative orders within a public authority. We are only concerned with the
accessibility to information held by such public authority. In this case, it is for the
First Appellate Authority, the Addl. Commr. (Health & Estt.) to ensure compliance
with his orders. If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of
receipt of this order, the FAA should approach this Commission for initiation of
proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty and/or
recommending appropriate disciplinary action. This will be without prejudice to
the right of the First Appellate Authority to initiate other penal action under the
Indian Penal Code against the PIO for willful violation of lawful orders
promulgated by a public servant while exercising statutory powers.

With these directions, the appeal is disposed off.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
18.2.2008

7
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.

(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
18.2.2008