Central Information Commission

*****

No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00013

Dated: 5 February 2007

Name of the Appellant : Prof. Pramila Sharma,

40, Arjun Marg,
DLF Phase – I,
Gurgaon (Haryana)

Name of the Public Authority : Daulat Ram College, Delhi

Background:

Smt. Pramila Sharma, a retired Professor from Daulat Ram College,

University of Delhi, had filed five separate applications to the PIO, University of
Delhi, on 13 December 2005 who forwarded these applications to the PIO,
Daulat Ram College, regarding monthly medical allowance since her
retirement, copy of her service record with full leave record, deposit of WUS
Health Centre contribution, PF statement and certified copy of the minutes of
the meeting of the Governing Board and Finance Committee held during May
2000 to July 2001.

2. Not getting any reply from the PIO after the expiry of 30 days from the
date of filing these applications, the Appellant filed 5 separate appeals in the
Central Information Commission.

3. The matters were fixed for hearing on 8 January 2006.

4. The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the

matter.

5. In its earlier order dated 26.12.2006, the Commission issued a penalty

notice to the PIO & officiating Principal, Daulat Ram College for her failure to
provide the information to the Appellant within the time limit allowed under
the RTI Act, 2005 and directed the authorities of Daulat Ram College to appear
before this Commission on 8 January 2007 to report compliance of its orders.
6. The Principal, Daulat Ram College, who is also the PIO, represented the
Respondents.

7. The Appellant, Smt. Pramila Sharma, was present in person.

Decision:

8. The Commission heard both the parties. To its great surprise and
disappointment, it observed that lot of the information that was asked for by
the Appellant had not been provided till date. The Commission directed the
Appellant to state item wise the request for information for which he had not
been given a satisfactory response till date.

9. While the issue of penalty to be imposed is being heard separately, the

Commission directs the Principal of the College to initiate strict disciplinary
action against those members of the staff who had not acted in response of the
Commission’s order dated 26 December 2006.

10. The Commission gives the Respondents 15 days time from the date of
receipt of this order to supply all the information in a complete manner to the
Appellant. In case they are not able to comply, they may come with fully valid
reasons for not doing it.

11. In connection with the show cause notice for imposition of penalty, the
Commission heard the PIO. Since the PIO had not been able to provide many
pieces of information without any reasonable cause till date about which the
Appellant has clarified during the hearing, there is no reason as to why penalty
under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on the PIO of the Daulat Ram
College.

12. In spite of giving sufficient time, the Respondents still did not adhere to
the Order of the Commission dated 26.12.2006. The Commission, therefore,
imposes a penalty under Section 20(1) @ Rs.250/- per day starting from the
completion of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application till the actual
date of providing the information, subject to the maximum of Rs.25,000/- for
each of these five applications. All these five applications were received by
the PIO on 13.12.2005. Hence the reply should have reached the appellant
latest by 12.01.2006. However there is a delay of more than 100 days in
supplying the information. Therefore, the penalty works out to be Rs.25000/-
per application. It is pertinent to note that there was not a single
correspondence from the Respondents to the Appellant even after her filing 5
applications. It was only after the intervention of this Commission that the
Respondents acted on the application of the Appellant, and that too
unsatisfactorily.

13. Now the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs.25000/- on the PIO for each
of these applications. Since there were five separate applications the total
amount of penalty works out to Rs.1,25,000/- in the second hearing the
officiating principal, who is also the PIO of the college, tried to explain that she
was constantly in touch with the staff to provide the information but there was
no adequate response from them. The Commission permits her to conduct an
inquiry and in case the PIO feels that she is not responsible for the delay she
may file an affidavit clearly identifying the name/names of the officials who
were responsible for the delay together with the number of days by which they
delayed and accordingly apportion the amount of penalty.

14. The affidavit, if any, must be filed at the earliest in and any case before
28 February 2007 failing which the total penalty will be recovered from the
PIO.

15. The Commission ordered accordingly.

Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

Sd/-
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:

1. Prof. Pramila Sharma, 40, Arjun Marg, DLF Phase – I, Gurgaon

(Haryana)

2. The Principal & PIO, Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi, 4

Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007.

3. Officer Incharge, NIC

4. Press E Group, CIC