Pankaj Bhatia v. GNCTD

Page 2 of 6

"Kindly provide the following information, under the subject Act, with respect to Progressive Enclave CGHS, Plot 3, Sector 3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 078 (722

GH).

Inquiry was ordered, by the RCS, vide Ref (47/722) / G * H / A * R / S * ec - 6/748 - 751 dt (23/12) / 19 appointing Sh. V K Mittal as IO, for fixing responsibility towards misappropriation of Society funds from 2013-14 to 2015-

16. The IO submitted his report on 23/2/21. The Society informed, in the GBM held on 31/10/21 (MoMs Ref MCM/2021- 22/60, dt 02/11/21, Item No 9), that the Mg. Committee has written to RCS for initiating action against the persons found guilty of misappropriation of funds, along with penal interest. Subsequently, in the GBM held on 18/9/22 (MoMs Ref MCM/2022-23/17, dt (20/9) / 22 Item No. 6), it was informed that a revision petition has been filed by Mr. Krishan Kumar (one of the persons named in the Inq. Report), which is listed for hearing on 24/11/22. The Society has taken I adequate measure to defend the case. From the two underlined portions, it is not T + T clear, as to which of the two agencies, the RCS OR the CGHS, is responsible for action/recovery?

All the above documents are available with RCS, as either issued by them, or their copies marked to them by the CGHS, as a rule.

(1) Pl provide a copy of the revision petition of Sh. Krishan Kumar, & inform the outcome of the hearing held on 24/11/22, & its next date(s) of hearing?

(2) If this is a revision petition, then pl provide a copy of the first/initial petition filed by Sh. Krishan Kumar, & the final order, of the court, thereto.

(3) Is the case/petition filed by Sh. Krishan Kumar being defended by the concerned CGHS, or RCS, or by both?

(4) If the case, as at (3) above is being defended by both, then who is bearing the costs, & if both (RCS & CHGS) are bearing the costs, then in what proportion? Pl provide a copy of this cost-sharing agreement, or order.

(5) Under which Section/sub-section of the DCS Act does the RCS come into the picture/action, once the inquiry has been ordered by him, & the responsibility fixed? Pl clearly state the responsibilities of the CGHS, & RCS for the recovery in such cases of embezzlement of Society funds.

2 / 7

2

Page 3 of 6

(6) Other than the court case filed by the alleged culprits named in the inquiry report, & the RCS defending it, in collaboration with the CGHS named, pl state the other actions initiated against the CGHS, & its office bearers? Pl provide the connected documents' copies.

(7) The said CGHS has actually recovered/showing outstanding, the legal expenditure of Consumer Court case, filed by some of its members in the past, & borne by this CGHS in its defense, from those petitioning member(s). This was done through a GBM resolution. Is a similar recovery proposed by the said CGHS from the persons named in the Inquiry Report? Also, the recovery of the costs of Special Audit, & Inquiry Report preparation? PI provide a copy of the CGHS resolution to this effect.

(8) If the information to (7) above is in the negative, then does the RCS has powers to recover all/some costs as detailed? Pl also quote the relevant Section of the DCS Act/Rules under which such recoveries can be done. The PIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 25.01.2023 stating as under:

"Point No. 1 - 4:

Please mention the case no. title and court in which the case is going so that this office can provide you the desired information, if available. Point No. 5:

Question/Queries/Clarifications are not covered under the RTI Act 2005. Point No. 6:

No such information is available in this branch.

Point No. 7:

No such copy of CGHS resolution is available in this branch records. Point No. 8:

Please refer to DCS Act 2003 & Rules 2007 which is available on the official website of RCS office i.e. rcs.delhigovt.nic.in at free of cost." Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.02.2023, held as under:

3 / 7

3

Page 4 of 6

"The PIO/AR (Sec-6) is directed to provide requisite information in terms of provisions of RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant within 07 days of receipt of this order. Also, if the applicant desires, he may be allowed to visit the office of the PIO to inspect the available records relating to his application to get the copies of required information as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent

Respondent: Shri Satish Kumar Gupta, PIO/Assistant Registrar, Shri Harbans Lal, Section Officer/APIO and Shri Sameer Shandilya, Jr. Assistant, appeared in person.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant as per the records available with them vide letter dated 25.01.2023.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that reply given by the respondent was incomplete, evasive and misleading. It is noted that the FAA's order dated 07.02.2023 was not complied with by the PIO till the date of hearing. The PIO's representative appeared before the Commission failed to produce proper authority letter for presenting this case. In the absence of the PIO, reasons for non-compliance of the FAA's order could not be ascertained. Against point Nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application, the PIO has sought case details from the appellant whereas the appellant in his RTI application has given sufficient details by which case number or title could be searched from the records available with the respondent. Besides, against point Nos. 6 and 7 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that no such information was available with their branch however, they failed to transfer the RTI application to the concerned CPIO under the provisions of the RTI Act. 4 / 7

4

Page 5 of 6

Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that PIO has neither provided details i.e. name, official email id and official number, while giving reply to the appellant nor given such details while giving authority letter. Thus, prima facie it appears that the PIO is treating the RTI Law in a cavalier manner which is in violation of the spirit of the law.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Ms. Suman Kumari, PIO/Assistant Registrar, is show caused to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon her for not providing the information to information and for not appearing before the Commission despite notice. Shri Harbans Lal, Section Officer/APIO is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the PIO and secure her attendance on the next date of hearing and also submit her written explanations. All the written explanations of the PIO must reach the Commission within four weeks.

In addition to the above, the PIO is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a suitable revised point-wise information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि)

Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्)

(S. Anantharaman)

Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date

5 / 7

5

Page 6 of 6 Copy To:

The FAA, Office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, GNCTD, Old Court Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001

Ms. Suman Kumari,

PIO, O/o Registrar Cooperative Societies, GNCTD, Old Court Building,

Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001

6 / 7

6

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 17 7

7