ORDER

FACTS

The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 5 points:

The CPIO vide letter dated 14.10.2020, furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission,

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: Mr. Rajesh K Singla, participated through AC,

Respondent: Mr. Sunil Khosla, Baba Balraj Constituent College, Punjab University, participated through AC.

The Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding the appointment of guest faculty. He further stated that the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He alleged that the issue in this case pertains to corruption w.r.t. backdoor appointments of faculties in colleges affiliated to Punjab University. He said the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, had in a judgement, ruled that the selection of faculties should be done through a transparent selection procedure and alleged that the Respondent authorities were bribed by some candidates and hence the faculties were appointed without following the due selection procedure. He informed the Commission that any guest faculty could be hired as a permanent faculty, provided that he/she was appointed as a guest faculty through a public selection procedure. However, he alleged many guest faculties were appointed as permanent faculty without following the due selection procedure. He requested the Commission to take appropriate action on the Respondent for hiding the information sought.

The Respondent submitted that had furnished a reply as per the provisions of RTI Act and that the allegations levelled up by the Complainant are baseless. He further submitted that no such corruption exists in the system and that the Deputy Registrar (establishment) was appointed in 2016 and he had properly looked into the matters of appointment.

The Complainant countered the claim of the Respondent and stated that the Deputy Registrar (establishment) is himself involved in the alleged corruption. He further requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to file an affidavit submitting that the allegations of corruption are not true and no such corruption actually took place.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 02.04.2022 which is taken on record.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission further observes that the allegations of corruption are very grave in nature and are being overlooked by the Respondent authorities which further indicates that the circumstances and the facts of the case lend weight to the allegations of corruption made by the Appellant in the case.

Therefore, the Commission directs Mr. Krishan Kumar, Secretary Higher Education and Languages, Chandigarh administration, to look into the allegations of corruption levelled against the Respondent and conduct an inquiry, as the said allegations, if true, have a direct bearing on the education system of the state as well the career prospects of a large number of students. The Commission further directs Mr. Krishan Kumar to submit a report to the Commission of the inquiry conducted and action taken in the matter to the Commission, within a period of 60 days from the receipt of this order, strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly