Certified copies of documents regarding appellant’s early retirement under Rule 56 (j) - Appellant claimed that she was given early retirement without any reason - CIC directed the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect records
19 Jun, 2024Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-
“Please provide certified copies of the following information/ documents with regards to my early retirement under the rule 56j.
1. Office order of the Internal committee appointed for this purpose.
2. Office order of the review committee appointed for this purpose.
3. Name and Designation of the appointing authority in regards to my case.
4. Name and Designation of Appellate authority in regards to my case.
5. Date and Minutes of the meeting held, in regards to the retirement of Romila Ahluwalia under the rule 56j.
6. Recommendations /reasons/ documents in regards to the retirement of Romila Ahluwalia under the rule 56j.
7. Order issued by Ministry of Culture, to delegate powers of Director General to Ramsharan Gaud, the then Chairman, Delhi Library Board.”
The CPIO vide letter dated 11.11.2022 replied as under:-
“SL No 1. Internal Committee constituted comprising of following officers Sh.K.S.Raju, ALIO Sh.K L Meena, ALIO, SC/ST representative Smt Saraswai Nand Panwar LIA.
SINo.2 - Review Committee constituted comprising of the following membersDr Neelam Singh, DLB Member Sh RK Meena, LIO Sh KS Raju, LIO Sh KL Meena,
LIO SINo.3- As per the DPL By-Laws, the Chairman, Delhi Library Board (DLB) is the Appointing Authority of Group 'B'(Gazetted level)
SINo.4 - As per the DLB By-Laws, the Chairman, DLB is the Appellate Authority for Group 'B' Gazetted Level.
SINo.5 - Meeting held on 22.06.2021. Minutes of the said committee exempted under the Secton 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
SINo.6 - Exempted under Sec. 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005.
SINo.7 - Delhi Public Library has own By-Laws. Ministry of Culture has never passed any such order.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 18.03.2024 has been received from the CPIO/Assistant Library as under :
For Sr. No. 01 The Internal Committee was constituted to assist the Review Committee assessing the cases under FR 56(j) but no formal Order was issued in this matter.
For Sr. No. 02 Review Committee Office Order is attached.
For Sr. No. 03 & 04 As per the Board Resolution (attached).
For Sr. No. 05 Meeting held on 22.06.2021. Minutes of the said committee exempted under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005.
For Sr. No. 06 Does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
For Sr. No. 07 Order Attached.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Neeta Ahuja, CPIO- was present during hearing.
The Appellant stated that the requisite information has not been furnished to her till date. She was given early retirement under rule 56 j without any reason and ground. She stated that complete documents and information related to review committee has not been furnished by the PIO. She stated that misleading information has been furnished by the PIO.
The Respondent stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application has been duly furnished to the Appellant. She stated that office order dated 19.06.2021 related to review committee has been provided to the Appellant. A copy of written submission dated 18.03.2024 was furnished to the Appellant during hearing.
Decision:
Commission based on the averment made by the parties during hearing, directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or her authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/ Department, then the concerned PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for the said inspection. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. However, no information shall be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. PIO must make sure that only information pertaining to Appellant must be produced for inspection and no records pertaining to any third party must be produced and same must be redacted prior to said inspection.
The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Romila Ahluwalia v. Delhi Public Library, CIC/DELPL/A/2023/600558; Date of Decision : 28.03.2024