के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission , बाबा गंगनाथ मागग मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली , New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DOTTE/A/2023/651515 Dr Jaseela Majeed .….अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant VERSUS बनाम The CPIO Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Muni Maya ….प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent Marg, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date of Decision : 07.03.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Relevant facts emerging from appeal :

RTI application filed on : 29.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023 and 04.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 02.09.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 26.09.2023

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:

1. Copy of note sheets and correspondence after filing of the complaint by Dr. Jaseela Majeed against Dr. O.P Shukla, Registrar DPSRU with respect to letter no F. 3 (1379) Vig/DTTE/2023/187 dated 16.02.2023.

2. The action taken against the points mentioned in the above-mentioned complaints.

3. The rules/regulations followed by Directorate of Training and Technical Education (DTTE) in handling these types of complaints on harassment of women at workplace.

4. The procedure followed by Directorate of Training and Technical Education (DTTE) in handling these types of complaints on harassment of women at workplace.

5. Institutional framework established by DTTE in handling harassment of women at workplace.

6. What is the time duration followed by DTTE in disposing of such cases?

7. Responsible official /authority at DTTE for handling and disposing of justice to the cases of harassment of women at workplace.

8. What is the present status of the above-mentioned complaint?

9. Who is the appellate authority above DTTE if the compliant is not handled as per rules/regulations.

The CPIO’s did not reply to the RTI application. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.09.203, held as under:

“Sh. Anil Kumar, S.O. (Vigilance) states that the complaint of Dr. Majeed was dealt properly in Vigilance Branch as per instructions of CVC & DOPT and finally it has been decided by Competent Authority to re-submit the file after report of the Inquiry Committee Constituted to enquire in to alleged irregularities in DPSRU, is submitted. Dr. Jaseela Majeed, on the other hand submits that she has full rights to have information regarding complaint filed by her against Dr. O.P. Shukla, Registrar, DPSRU.

Sh. Anil Kumar, deemed PIO states that whatever information was sought by the applicant has already been provided to her except the information exempt from disclosure under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

FAA, DTTE has gone through the file dealing with the complaint of Dr. Jaseela Majeed & reply given to the applicant and directs the PIO/deemed PIO to provide the present status of complaint of the applicant within 10 days and also to provide complete information to the applicant after investigation in the DPSRU matter is complete.”

In compliance of the FAA’s order, the CPIO vie letter dated 04.10.2023 provided the following reply to the appellant:

“In this regard, it is informed that the compliant mentioned in the RTI Application was processed in this Branch as per guidelines/instructions issued by the CVC and DOPT, however, it has been decided by the Competent Authority to re-submit the file after report of the Inquiry Committee constituted to enquire into alleged irregularities in DPSRU, is submitted. The inquiry report has not yet been submitted by the Committee, therefore, copies of the relevant record cannot be provided as per provisions of Section 8(1)(h) 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: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Section officer