CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 1

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)


CIC/AD/A/2013/001195-SA


Appellant : Harsh Vardhan
Respondent : District Institute of Education &
Training (D.I.E.T)
Date of hearing : 12.9.2014
Date of decision :


Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)


Referred Sections : Section 20 of the
RTI Act


Result : Penalty withdrawn

Appellant admonished for Abuse of RTI and Recommended
action for recovery and discipline, etc.

Summary:
This is a case of serious misuse of RTI and suppression of record by the
appellant himself for securing undue benefit of encashment of leaves
which he has already availed. From the depositions and submissions of
various officers harassed by him it is revealed that the appellant himself
misplaced the record with the support of dealing assistant, and started
asking for that record through RTI applications, which caused several
rounds of hearing. The Commission was misled by this duo leading to
imposition of penalty on an officer who was technically assumed to have
suppressed the file. However imposition of fine of Rs 25,000 caused the
wonder and misplaced file was discovered in a combined effort of all
officers who were victimized by his RTI. With the discovery of file, the fact
of false claim of 19 days EL was revealed and fortunately the officer who
was fined based on the complaint of appellant was saved.

Exercising powers under Section 18(2) the Commission directs the public
authority to conduct inquiry against the appellant and his supporter for
suppression of files, false claim of 19 days Earned leave, causing criminal
wastage of time of several senior officers, causing mental harassment for
the colleagues for which they are entitled to initiate separate legal actions
individually, causing wastage of this Commissions time and to collect
appropriate amount of damages from him.

CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 2

The Commission also recommends the public authority to initiate action
against appellant and his assistant as his misconduct could amount to a
crime under Indian Penal Code and Public Record Act, 1993 resulting in
appropriate penalty under law.

The Commission records its admonition against him for this gross misuse
of RTI and directs the Public Authority to put this order in public domain
and notice board so that unscrupulous abusers feel ashamed of abusing
RTI.


Background

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dt.21.1.13 with the PIO,
DIET, Pitampura seeking the following information:
i) Photocopy of attendance register showing that he was on
leave w.e.f 2.1.12 to 20.1.12.
ii) Photocopy of leave application submitted by him w.e.f
2.1.12 to 20.1.12
iii) Leave sanction letter by Principal at the time of applying
leave i.e. in January 2, 2012 sanctioning leaves w.e.f
2.1.12 to 20.1.12
iv) Copy of diary/despatch register showing the leave
application was submitted for diary on 2.1.12 and also
showing joining diary no. with date.
v) Name of Principal who sanctioned his leave leave in
January 2012 for the period 2.1.12 to 20.1.12.
vi) Provide dates when the leaves were sanctioned for the
period 2.1.12 to 20.1.12.
vii) Provide name of the Principal who sanctioned leave and
when.

2. The Commission heard the matter on 29
th
April 2014 and
pronounced decision on 5
th
May 2014. The Paras 5 to 8 of the above
decision are reproduced below:

5. In this appeal the appellant is seeking photo copies of
attendance register showing that he was on leave w.e.f. 2-1-
2012 to 20-1-2012, photo copy of the leave application
submitted by him for this period, leave sanction letter, extracts
of diary/dispatch register showing the relevant entries of his
leave application, name of the Principal who sanctioned his
leave in January 2012, etc. Having received no reply within the
prescribed period, the appellant preferred first appeal. First
Appellate Authority in his order stated that as the file was under
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 3

submission to the SCERT, the information will be given after
receiving the same. The appellant has submitted before the
commission that the respondents have deliberately harmed him
by falsely debiting 19 days leave from his leave account for the
period 2-1-2012 to 20-1-2012, even though he did not apply for
leave for that period.

6. The respondents have submitted that all the records
including those from which information sought by the appellant,
were under submission to the State Council of Educational
Research & Training(SCERT) in connection with the appointment
of a fact finding committee to go into the allegations made by
the appellant and hence information could not be given. Joint
Director, SCERT is the chairman of the said committee. The
said Committee seized all the relevant records for this purpose.
This shows how cleverly the information was denied to him.
Because the appellant was asserting that leave was falsely
created, the officers took the lame excuse of nquiryand denied
the information en bloc.

7. They further stated that the relevant attendance register
was misplaced by the custodian of records, Ms. Reena Sharma,
DDO. No other record is available in the office regarding the
leave of appellant for that period, except a note sheet in his
personal file in which the dealing assistant has written that the
appellant was on leave from 2-1-12 to 20-1-2012, which was
endorsed by the Office Superintendent, Ms. Reena Sharma and
approved by the Principal of the Institute and the same was
supplied to the appellant, but the appellant denied having
received it.

8. From the submissions and letters shown to the Commission
by the appellant, the Commission observes that the appellants
claim that the Principal has unnecessarily debited leave in his
service book, even though he did not avail the leave for that
period, appears to be correct prima facie from the letter dt. 16-
8-2013 written by Dr. Kusum Sharma, Principal to the Principal,
DIET, Keshav Puram asking her to credit the leave to his
account. The appellant also shown another photo copy of a
note, wherein one Mr. Purushotham who dealt with the file,
stated that on the basis of diary register, the appellant had not
taken leave from 2-1-2012 to 20-1-2012. He has also shown
the copies of extracts of the diary register during that period,
giving in a chronological order the list of letters received by the
office and there is no entry of the appellants leave application
during that period. The Commission, therefore, concludes that
there is no force in the claim of the respondent authority, that
the relevant attendance register is misplaced. The respondent
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 4

authority could not explain why action was not taken against the
employees who were responsible for misplacing the record, if
that was true. . The Commission, therefore, directs the
respondent authority to (1) initiate enquiry into the
allegations of missing records, fix responsibility on the
officers concerned and take disciplinary action (2) to
furnish the desired information to the appellant relating
to his leave application, sanctioned letter and other
correspondence pertaining to his EL for the relevant
period, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
order and (3) to show cause why maximum penalty
cannot be imposed on the concerned PIO, Dr. Anul
Sharma, Ms. Reena Sharma, OS and Mr. Devender Kumar,
Dealing Assistant, for obstructing the furnishing of
required information to the appellant. Their explanation
should reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the
date of receipt of this order.

3. The case was further heard on 25.6.14 and decision pronounced
on 4.7.14. The Paras 2 to 11 of the said decision is reproduced below:

3. In compliance of the CIC order, the Appellate Authority
vide letter dt.20.5.14 issued show cause notice to Dr.Anjul
Sharma, PIO, Ms.Reena Shrma, Office Supdt., and Shri
Devender Kumar, Dealing Assistant.

4. The reply furnished by Dr.Anjul Sharma on 27.5.14 is as
follows:
I as ex-PIO tried my best to get the reply and documents from
the custodian of the record Ms.Reena Sharma, OS in respect of
two RTIs of Shri Harsh Vardhan. Dr.Sunil Kumar, FAA was
repeatedly informed by PIO both verbal and written to give
directions to OS to provide me the documents but FAA neither
gave reply nor provided any documents inspite of my repeated
time bound requests and CIC directions. Following documents
have not been provided till date
- Information related to leaves of Ms.Reena Sharma and
residential address
- Photocopy of attendance register showing that Shri Harsh
Vardhan was on leave w.e.f 2.1.12 to 20.1.12.
- Photocopy of leave application
- Leave application letter by Principal
- Copy of Diary/Despatch register showing the leave
application was submitted
- Date when leave were sanctioned.
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 5

When I failed to get any reply from FAA and OS, I finally wrote a
letter to the applicant on 9.1.13 mentioned
the above officers were asked to provide the above said
documents but official concerned is not willing to disclose the
information and documents under RTI Act, Section 8(1). This is
for your information
This was issued with the prior approval of Dr.Sunil Kumar, FAA

This implies that FAA was well aware of the facts that custodian
of the record was not providing the documents. Three letters
were written to FAA and OS to supply the documents as I
exhausted all channels to get the documents.

Dr.Anjul Sharma added that she was issued a show cause notice
stating that FAA directed the PIO to provide the said information
vide order dt.20.11.12 and 14.6.13 whereas no such
directions/orders had never been issued to her. When she
asked FAA to provide the copy of orders, FAA filed to do so. She
also requested for imposition of penalty on Dr.Sunil Kumar, FAA
and Ms.Reena Sharma, OS for obstructing the supply of
information.

5. In her letter dt.2.6.14, Dr.Anjul Sharma explains the
efforts made by her to get the information from the OS and
when she failed, she sought assistance from FAA and Director of
SCERT.

6. In her reply dt.23.5.14, Ms.Reena Sharma, OS submits
that the RTI application dt.24.1.13 was replied on 4.2.13 and to
the Appellate Authority on 21.6.13. She added that with regard
to the photocopies of the personal file of Shri Harsh Vardhan,
the same will be provided by the custodian of the personal
records i.e. Dealing Assistant. She also states that custodian of
all these records is Shri Devender Kumar and keys are
maintained by him only. According to her, it was Shri Devender
Kumar who was in the habit of providing copies of important
documents to Shri Harsh Vardhan. She also adds that her
service book is not lying in the almirah of Shri Devender Kumar
and this fact is brought to the notice of the Principal for further
action and it is her belief that her personal information is being
furnished by Shri Devender Kumar to the RTI application in a
clandestine manner. During the hearing, she alleged that RTI
applicant and Shri Devender Kumar were hand in glove and
were harassing her with false claims.

7. Shri Devender Kumar, Dealing Assistant in his reply
dt.16.6.14 addressed to the CIC states that he was never asked
to furnish any document in respect of Shri Harsh Vardhan by
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 6

FAA or PIO or OS as all the documents were in the custody of
above said officials from day one. He states that in para 3 of
the show cause notice issued to him by the FAA, FAA himself
mentions that directions are issued to PIO and deemed PIO only
to furnish the document. Nowhere his name was mentioned by
FAA nor any directions were given. He also requested the
Commission to direct Secretary(Education) to order independent
enquiry for the theft of documents from the custody of FAA and
OS and involving others in the said controversy to cover up their
own wrong doings. In reply to the show cause notice issued by
FAA, Shri Devender Kumar in his reply dt.26.5.14 states that

8. Dr.Kusum Sharma, Principal, DIET, Pitampura in her
letter dt.15.10.13 addressed to Principal, DIET, Keshavpuram
stated that during the tenure of Dr.Sunil Kumar, the then
Principal, the attendance register was found missing and the
same was reported to him in the month of October 2012 and
later on file was sent to SCERT. Apart from the missing of
attendance register, she also stated that papers
diarized/dispatched have been torn, also the relevant papers
were neither available in office nor in the personal file of Shri
Harsh Vardhan. Giving benefit of doubt, Dr.Kusum Sharma
concluded that Shri Harsh Vardhan did not avail leave and wrote
to DIET, Keshavpuram to credit 19 days EL so that his dues
were cleared before his superannuation.

9. The Commission on perusal of the explanations submitted
is of the opinion that the principal person who is being accused
by Dr.Anjul Sharma and Dr.Kusum Sharma for obstructing the
supply of information and for destruction of records is Dr.Sunil
Kumar, the First Appellate Authority. Even Shri Devender
Kumar who is accused of being hand in glove with the RTI
applicant by Ms.Reena Sharma has also indirectly blamed Shri
Sunil Kumar. Shri Sunil Kumar in his letter dt.20.6.14 has
stated that in compliance with the directions of the CIC, Show
Cause Notice dt.20.5.14 were issued to Dr.Anjul Sharma,
Ms.Reena Sharma and Shri Devender Kumar. Shri Sunil Kumar
while enclosing the replies furnished by these officials in his
letter also states that he is not satisfied with the reply and
requested the Commission to pass necessary directs as far as
imposition of penalty is concerned. The Commission also
observed that Shri Sunil Kumar has not responded to the show
cause issued by the Commission vide its notice dt.12.6.14. He
has also not refuted the allegations made by the officials against
him for obstructing the supply of information. Being a Principal
and First Appellate Authority of the Public Authority, he should
have used his authority in supplying the information within the
time limit. Instead, he chose to blame his subordinates. In the
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 7

absence of explanation from Shri Sunil Kumar, Commission
assumes that he does not have any explanation to give and the
conduct of Shri Sunil Kumar as appearing from the submissions
made by three officials, holds him guilty of obstructing the
supply of information.

10. The Commission, therefore, holds Shri Sunil Kumar,
Appellate Authority of being guilty for obstructing the supply of
information. The Commission, therefore, imposes a maximum
penalty of Rs.25,000/- on Shri Sunil Kumar.

11. The Director, SCERT is directed to recover the amount of
Rs.25,000/- from the salary payable to Shri Sunil Kumar,
Appellate Authority by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of
PAO CAT in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment
should reach the Commission by 10
th
September, 2014 and the
last instalment should reach by 10
th
January, 2015. The
Demand Draft should be sent to Shri Tarun Kumar, Joint
Secretary & Additional Registrar Central Information
Commission, Bhikaji Cama Place, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 066.

4. Aggrieved with this order, Dr. Sunil Kumar, Appellate
Authority submitted a representation dt.22.7.2014 seeking
withdrawal of penalty. His response to the charges made by
Dr.Anjul Sharma, Dr.Kusum Sharma, Ms.Reena Sharma and Shri
Devender Singh are reproduced below:

i). Charge by Dr Anjul Sharma: FAA was repeatedly
informed by PIO both verbal and written to give directions to O.S
and that reply to RTI was This issues with the prior approval of
FAA, Dr.Sunil Kumar.

a) Reply by Sunil Kumar: The said RTI is related to leave
records of CCL and EL availed for LTC in the months June-July
2011, attendance register thereof and also HRA being drawn by Ms.
Reena Sharma. Both O.S and PIO repeatedly replied to the
appellant that it is 3
rd
party information and cant be revealed.
Recently, in June 2014, in a similar case, Dr. Anjul Sharma, PIO has
been found guilty of wrongly drawing HRA residing in Govt.
accommodation for past many years(in an enquiry set up by
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 8

Secretary education at SCERT). An order to recover Rs.4,66,130/-
along with action to be taken against her is issued by highest
authority.

b) The reply of PIO given at the stage was not only
incomplete but incorrect and fabricated as well. At no stage, any
approval was sought from me as FAA even after clear directions to
provide relevant information within fifteen days.

c) Dr.Sunil Kumar further adds that he was posted at
DIET Pitampura as Principal with effect from 30.1.12 to 23.1.13 and
subsequently w.e.f 1.2.14 to till date.

d) During the period 23.1.13 to 31.1.14 (RTI application
was dt.21.1.13), he was neither the Principal nor the Appellate
Authority, DIET, Pitampura.

e) Dr. Sunil Kumar was not posted in any capacity in the
said institute, rather the following were the Principals i.e. Md.
Zamir, Dr. Kusum Bhatia and Dr. Kusum Sharma and also the
Appellate Authority during filing of reply to Shri Harshvardhan and
FAAs hearing.

f) To the charge of Dr.Anjul Sharma that FAA was
repeatedly informed by PIO both verbal and written to give
directions to O.S, Dr. Sunil Kumar states that he was not posted in
DIET Pitampura as Principal or any other capacity during the said
period.

g) Dr.Sunil Kumar also produced an e-mail dt.10.6.13
written by Dr.Anjul Sharma to Director, SCERT which is reproduced
below:
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 9

I am PIO of DIET, Pitampura. There is an appeal (received in
DIET Pitampura on 14.5.13) to reply of RTI of Shri Harsh Vardhan
dt.11.4.13. Date of appeal was fixed on 7.6.13 with the consent of
Dr.Kusum Bhatia after taking charge by her. She attended meeting
as First Appellate on 7.6.13 at 12.00 p.m. Now she is saying that
she is not First Appellate and Dr.Alka Kalra is First Appellate of
DIET, Pitampura. One month will be over on 14.6.13. I request
you to please clear that who is First Appellate of DIET, Pitampura.
Reply of other RTIs are also pending.

h) The above e-mail clearly shows that Dr.Kusum Bhatia
was then Principal/FAA and that Dr.Kusum Sharma took over as
Principal/FAA w.e.f July 2013 to January 2014.

ii). Charge by Ms.Reena Sharma, O.S Photocopies of
personal records will be provided by the Dealing Assistant, Shri
Devender Kumar, LDC. She also alleged that her personal
information is being furnished by Shri Devender Kumar to the RTI
applicant in a clandestine manner. Also RTI applicant and Shri
Devender Kumar were hand in glove and were harassing her with
false claim

a) Reply of Dr.Sunil Kumar: I was not posted in the said
Institute in any capacity during the time; rather the then
Principals/FAAs were responsible for furnishing the replies. Yet,
they did not carry out directions issued by Vigilance Officer, SCERT
and never even named erring officials or frame any chargesheet as
directed by SCERT in the case.

b) Dr. Sunil Kumar, further adds that when Honble issued
show cause notice to all concerned including Shri Devender Kumar,
dealing assistant for imposing penalty, Mr.Devender wrote a letter
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 10

to the Principal enquiring about his reply. Surprisingly it is noticed
that the said letter was written in the handwriting of Shri
Harshvardhan (Appellant) and signed by Shri Devender Kumar.
This proves beyond doubt that Shri Devender Kumar is working at
the behest of Shri Harshvardhan(Appellant) under his guidance to
realize his ulterior motives. It is clear who is behind the missing
attendance register of academic staff, relevant pages of diary
register of the period being torn and who helped him in this
conspiracy so as to get the benefits of 300 earned leave at the time
of superannuation.

iii) Charge by Shri Devender Kumar: FAA or PIO or OS
never asked to furnish any document in respect of RTI of Shri
Harshvardhan dt.24.1.14. He also requested for independent
enquiry.from the custody of FAA andOS

a) Reply by Dr.Sunil Kumar: I was not posted in the said
Institute in any capacity during the time. It is well known fact that
custodian of papers/documents are the dealing assistant and O.S.
He also enclosed an order dt.20.12.11 signed by Dr.V.P.Singh,
Principal which is reproduced below:
Mr.Davender Kumar, LDC is hereby directed to keep the
attendance register along with order & movement register out of
almirah in administration.
Also, please submit one key of the almirah under your charge
to OS(Admn.) as early as possible.

b) It is known fact that FAA has no role to instruct or
direct the dealing assistant to provide information as it is obligatory
on part of custodians to give the information in his possession as
and when it is required by PIO.
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 11

(it would be of consequence to point out that it was later noticed at
DIET Keshavpuram, that the total no. of Earned Leave in respect of
Shri Harshvardhan are less than 300 at the time of his retirement
which may cause monetary loss to him. It may be inferred that
Shri Harshvardhan along with Shri Devnder Kumar, dealing
assistant conspired to achieve their objective. It was possible with
the help of Shri Devender Kumar who was continuously in touch
with Mr.Harshvardhan even after transfer to DIET, Keshavpuram.

iv) Charge made by Dr.Kusum Sharma: The para 8 of
the order dt.4.7.14 mentions that Dr.Kusum Sharma, then Principal
DIET-Pitampura wrote a letter to DIET Keshavpuram stating that
relevant papers were not available in personal file of Shri Harsh
Vardhan and credited 19 days E.L to him giving him the benefit of
doubt.

a) Reply of Dr.Sunil Kumar: 1) Dr.Kusum Sharma is
drawing full T.A in her salary illegally, despite having official vehicle
as principal w.e.f 2010 onwards, the case is being investigated at
SCERT Fact finding committee and recovery would amount to
approx. Rs.1.5 lakhs. 2) Ms.Reena Sharma availed LTC illegally in
June 2001 during CCL, tampering with leave records/service book
with the approval of Dr.Kusum Sharma and converting into E.L
(verifying and attesting it herself over the principals stamp)to
prevent recovery of Rs.58,921/- and amount of 10 days
encashment of E.L.

b) In both the cases, Appellant was blackmailing them
that he would complaint and they would have to pay not only heavy
amounts but also face disciplinary action. It is important to point
out that leaves were credited to the Appellant without the
permission or any approval of Head Office, SCERT, where the case
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 12

is being investigated by Fact finding committee. The decision was
taken on the level of the then Principal, Dr. Kusum Sharma,
hurriedly and overlooking all the facts of the case giving him the
benefit of doubt(on recommendation of O.S.Ms.Reena Sharma).
However, the Head Office, SCERT has never approved this
recommendation of DIET-Pitampur forwarded by Principal
Keshavpuram (wherein she has categorically specified for further
investigation). SCERT has taken a strong note of it and considered
Dr. Kusum Sharmas decision as arbitrary.

c) Also Dr. Kusum Sharma neither took any interest in
already initiated enquiry or carried out the directions of Vigilance
Officer, SCERT in this regard. It is clear that Dr.Kusum Sharma,
then Principal and Ms. Reena Sharma, OS(Admn.) had never tried
to expedite the matter for further investigation which they received
time to time from SCERT. Rather they credited 19 days leaves
illegally on 15.10.13 on Appellants request dt.24.7.13 to revert
back, putting all the blame on him (Dr.Sunil Kumar).

d) This needs no further explanation as to why the
Principal Dr.Kusum Sharma who was due to retire in 3 months time,
hurriedly credited his leave. Also OS, who had initially verified his
availing of leave, now recommended for credited it. They conspired
to give him benefit as they were sailing in the same boat.

v) The Para 9 of the order dt.4.7.14 is reproduced below:

9. The Commission on perusal of the explanations submitted
is of the opinion that the principal person who is being accused by Dr.
Anjul Sharma and Dr.Kusum Sharma for obstructing the supply of
information and for destruction of records is Dr.Sunil Kumar, the First
Appellate Authority. Even Shri Devender Kumar who is accused of
being hand in glove with the RTI applicant by Ms.Reena Sharma has
also indirectly blamed Shri Sunil Kumar. Shri Sunil Kumar in his letter
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 13

dt.20.6.14 has stated that in compliance with the directions of the CIC,
Show Cause Notice dt.20.5.14 were issued to Dr.Anjul Sharma,
Ms.Reena Sharma and Shri Devender Kumar. Shri Sunil Kumar while
enclosing the replies furnished by these officials in his letter also states
that he is not satisfied with the reply and requested the Commission to
pass necessary directs as far as imposition of penalty is concerned.
The Commission also observed that Shri Sunil Kumar has not
responded to the show cause issued by the Commission vide its notice
dt.12.6.14. He has also not refuted the allegations made by the
officials against him for obstructing the supply of information. Being a
Principal and First Appellate Authority of the Public Authority, he
should have used his authority in supplying the information within the
time limit. Instead, he chose to blame his subordinates. In the
absence of explanation from Shri Sunil Kumar, Commission assumes
that he does not have any explanation to give and the conduct of Shri
Sunil Kumar as appearing from the submissions made by three
officials, holds him guilty of obstructing the supply of information.

a) Reply of Dr. Sunil Kumar: The facts mentioned above
along with all the copies of records/orders make it crystal clear that he
has never obstructed and destructed information at any stage.
Rather, he had left no stone unturned to initiate the enquiry and also
timely, forwarded the case to vigilance, SCERT, wherein a fact finding
committee is constituted which is also investigating the issue in
respect of Shri Harshvardhan (leave records), Ms.Reena Sharma(leave
records, claiming HRA despite having Govt. accommodation) and
Dr.Kusum Sharma (claiming transport allowance despite having official
vehicle).

5. The Commission on perusal of the submissions made by Dr.Sunil
Kumar observed that he was not posted in DIET, Pitampura as
Principal or any other capacity during the period 23.1.13 to 31.1.14.
Hence, the Commission vide its notice dt.19.8.14 directed Shri Sunil
Kumar, Principal and FAA, Dr. Kusum Sharma, the then Principal,
DIET-Pitampura, Ms. Reena Sharma, OS, Dr. Anjul Sharma, PIO and
Shri Devender Kumar to submit their show cause explanation in the
form of affidavit and be present personally before the Commission on
12.9.14 at 12.00 Noon.
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 14


6. Dr. Sunil Kumar, Principal submitted his affidavit vide letter
dt.27.8.14 and additional affidavit vide letter dt.4.9.14. Shri Devinder
Kumar submitted his affidavit vide letter dt.3.9.14. Dr.Kusum
Sharma, Dr.Anjul Sharma and Ms.Reena Sharma submitted their
affidavits on 9.9.14.

7. During the hearing held on 12.9.14, the following were present:
i) Dr. Ram Kishan, DIET, Pitampura
ii) Dr. Anjul Sharma, DIET, Pitampura
iii) Shri Devinder Kumar, DIET, Pitampura
iv) Dr. Sunil Kumar, Principal, DIET
v) Dr. Kusum Sharma, Ex Principal
vi) Ms. Reena Sharma, OS

8. During the hearing, Ms. Reena Sharma, OS submitted that
during general service records verification they made special search
for the file in this case, they could find the documents in folded form
in different files. Unless each page is flipped and searched such
folded documents could not be discovered. Thus, the officer
suspects that it has been done deliberately by the person who
wants to be benefitted by such misplacement. From the discovered
file, it is disclosed that Appellant, Shri Harsh Vardhan, Sr. Lecturer,
DIET, Keshavpuram has availed the leave from 2.1.12 to 20.1.12.
Appellant has deceptively framed RTI questions asking for copy of
that leave register which was hidden by him and then proceeding
further to impose penalty for non-production. In one sentences,
appellant is seeking the copies of documents which he himself has
misplaced. Dr. Kusum Sharma submitted that Dileep Kumar,
dealing assistant told her that there was no record and despite her
efforts records could not be found and benefit of doubt was given to
the Appellant in whose account the leaves were credited as if he has
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 15

not availed while the truth was otherwise. Dr. Sunil Kumar
submitted that Dr. Alka Kalra, Principal, DIET, Keshavpuram did not
agree with the claim of appellant and she wanted the matter to be
probed further by SCERT. On her request, SCERT took a serious
note and it and nineteen days leave was debited from the
Appellants leave account.

9. The Commission concludes that the appellant misled his own
office to benefit himself and misled this Commission to impose
penalty on innocent and sincere officer for technical reasons.
Imposition fine of Rs 25,000 caused the wonder and misplaced file
was discovered by combined effort of all officers who were
victimized by the harassing questions of the appellant. With the
discovery of file, the fact of false claim of 19 days EL was revealed
and fortunately the officer who was fined based on the complaint of
appellant was saved.

10. The Commission finds it as fraudulent abuse of RTI and
process of second appeal by appellant and his supporter Dilip
Kumar. This reflects a very pathetic state of affairs of records and
selfish involvement of Appellant in hiding the records for his
monitory benefit. Appellant Harsha Vardhan did not satisfy with the
fraudulent encashment of 19 ELs but conspired to harass his
colleagues by abusing the Right to Information Act.

11. The Commission finds that it is unscrupulous abuse of RTI by
such a senior officer unbecoming of his stature and education
misplaced the record, suppressed the information and wrongfully
claimed public money besides harassing officers with RTI application
deserve to be disqualified. Honble Madras High Court in P.
Jayasankar v Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
and Gunaseelan, IPS [W.P No. 3776
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 16

& 3778/2013] decided on 18.2.2013 explained powers and duties
of the Commission as follows :

12. as regards the question as to whether the
particular information seeker can be disqualified or
blacklisted from sending further representation
having regard to the conduct of the concerned
person, certainly if a person abuses the process of
law and also insinuating the Commission.

62..... Under the provisions of the Act, particularly
Sections 4, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25, it is clear
that the Central or State Information Commission, as
the case may be, not only exercises adjudicatory
powers of a nature no different than a judicial
tribunal, but is vested with the powers of a civil court
as well. Therefore, it is requiredto decide a lis, where
information is required by a person and its furnishing
is contested by the other. The Commission exercises
two kinds of penal powers; firstly, in terms of
Section 20(1), it can impose penalty upon the
defaulters or violators of the provisions of the Act
and, secondly, Section 20(2) empowers the Central
and the State Information Commission to conduct an
enquiry and direct the disciplinary authority
concerned to take appropriate action against the
erring officer in accordance with law. Hence, the
Commission has powers to pass orders having civil as
well as penal consequences. Besides this, the
Commission has been given monitory and
recommendatory powers.

74.... It is clear that the authorities concerned,
particularly the Information Commission, possess the
essential attributes and trappings of a court. Its
powers and functions, as defined under the Act of
2005 also sufficiently indicate that it has adjudicatory
powers quite akin to the court system. They
adjudicate matters of serious consequences. The
Commission may be called upon to decide how far the
right to information is affected where information
sought for is denied or whether the information asked
for is "exempted" or impinges upon the "right to
privacy" or where it falls in the "no-go area" of
applicability of the Act. It is not mandatory for the
authorities toallow all requests for information in a
routine manner. The Act of 2005 imposes an
obligation upon the authoritiesto examine such matter
seriously being fully cautions of its consequences and
effects on the right of others. It may be a simple
query for information but an have far-reaching
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 17

consequences upon the right of a third party or an
individual with regard to whom such information is
sought. Undue inroad into the right to privacy of an
individual which is protected under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India or any other law in force would
not be permissible. In Gobind v. State of M.P., this
Court held that: : (SCC p. 155, para 22)

22... privacy-dignity claims deserve to be examined
with care and to be denied only when an important
countervailing interest is shown to be superior.

In Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, this (Supreme)
Court has observed that the right to privacy is an
integral part of the right to life. Thus, the decision-
making process by these authorities is not merely of
an administrative nature. The functions of these
authorities are more aligned towards the judicial
functions of the courts rather than mere
administrative acts of the State authority.

..

In view of the above finding, henceforth, no
information seeker can be allowed to insinuate
or defame the Commissioners in the guise of
prosecuting their cases.

14. Under such circumstances, when specific
power is vested on the Commissioner and the
Commission had proceeded against the
information seeker, who had abused
the Chief Information Commissioner in the
course of his proceedings, it will be open to the
said authority to disqualify a particular
information seeker by passing a speaking
order.

12. Though the Commission finds that this a fit case to disqualify
the abuser of RTI using the powers and duties under RTI Act as
interpreted by Madras High Court in the above referred case, the
Commission prefers to admonish the appellant and warn not to
repeat such misbehavior.

13. Exercising powers under Section 18(2) the Commission
directs the public authority to conduct inquiry against the appellant
and his supporter for suppression of files, false claims of 19 days
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 18

Earned leave, leading to criminal wastage of time of several senior
officers, causing mental harassment for the colleagues, for which
they are entitled to initiate separate legal actions individually, and
causing wastage of this Commissions time and to collect
appropriate amount of damages from him.

14. The Commission records its admonition against him for this
gross misuse of RTI and directs the Public Authority to put this
order in public domain and notice board so that unscrupulous
abusers feel ashamed of abusing RTI.

15. The Commission also recommends the public authority to
initiate action against appellant and his assistant as his misconduct
could amount to a crime under Indian Penal Code and Public Record
Act, 1993 resulting in appropriate penalty under law.

16. The Commission also recommends the Respondent Public
Authority to probe into the suspected wrongful association of Shri
Devinder Kumar who was Dealing Assistant and take necessary
action depending on the findings of the enquiry.

17. The Commission in view of the discovery of the file and
detailed explanation submitted by Dr.Sunil Kumar withdraws the
order dt.4.7.14 imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- on him.

18. The case is closed at the Commissions end.


M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy


(Babu Lal)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/AD/C/2013/001195 Page 19


Address of the parties:

1. Ms.Reena Sharma
OS(Admn.)
District Institute of
Education & Training
FU Block
Pitampura
Delhi 110 034

2. Dr.Anjul Sharma
Sr.Lecturer
District Institute of
Education & Training
FU Block
Pitampura
Delhi 110 034

3. Shri Devender Kumar
L.D.C
District Institute of
Education & Training
FU Block
Pitampura
Delhi 110 034

4. Shri Sunil Kumar
Principal &
First Appellate Authority
District Institute of
Education & Training
FU Block
Pitampura
Delhi 110 034

5. The Director
State Council of Educational
Research and Training
Varun Marg
Defence Colony
New Delhi 110 024

6. Shri Harsh Vardhan
84, Vaishali
Pitampura
Delhi 110 034

7. Shri Shanti Priye Beck
Joint Secretary &
Addl. Registrar
Central Information
Commission