के(cid:2)न्द्री(cid:5)य सूच(cid:9) ना(cid:12) आय(cid:14)ग Central Information Commission बा(cid:12)बा(cid:12) ग(cid:17)गना(cid:12)थ मा(cid:12)ग(cid:20), मानि(cid:21) नारके(cid:12)

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नाई दि(cid:26)ल्ली(cid:29), New Delhi – 110067 द्वि(cid:2)ती(cid:4)य अपी(cid:4)ल संख्(cid:11) य(cid:13) / Second Appeal No. CIC/DGEAT/A/2024/134968.

Shri. BRIJ KRISHNA SHARMA. … अपी(cid:4)लकती(cid:13)/(cid:15) Appellant VERSUS/बना(cid:13)म PIO, Directorate General of Employment National Career Service Centre for Differently …प्रद्वितीवा(cid:13)दी(cid:22)गण /Respondent Abled Date of Hearing : 10.06.2025 Date of Decision : 10.06.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 21.07.2024 PIO replied on : 02.08.2024 First Appeal filed on : 23.09.2024 First Appellate Order on : 08.10.2024 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 04.11.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-

“1. Provide printed pamphlets

2. Provide scanned copies of Citizen Charter

3. Provide photos of standing posters related to the activities of the center 4. Provide photos and scanned coples of all banners related to the center.

5. Provide scanned copies of all stickers used by the center for publicity.

6. Provide scanned copies of stock entry register of all the above.

All the above information is in the interest of the disabled people and is not under Rule 8. It is also worth mentioning here that under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, there is a provision of a maximum penalty of Rs

25,000 for hiding the information or not providing it intentionally”

The CPIO, Assistant Director (Empt.) vide letter dated 02.08.2024 replied as under:-

“Please refer to your RTI application registration No. DGEAT/R/E/24/00274 dated 21-07-2024 and DGE headquarters letter No. DGE-A-46012/01/2022-EE-11 (part-1) dated 22-07-2024 as subject cited above the requisite information sought in respect of this centre is as given below.

Information:

Point No. 1 & 2: Nil Point No. 3, 4 & 5: not readily available Point No. 6: Under Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the information shall not be disclosed if the same is not for larger public interest.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2024. The FAA, Deputy Secretary vide order dated

08.10.2024 stated as under :-

“Whereas, an RTI First Appeal Registration No. DGEAT/A/E/24/00150 dated 23.09.2024 under RTI Act, 2005 against RTI Application No.

DGEAT/R/E/24/00274 dated 21.07.2024.

2. The undersigned as First Appellate Authority has gone through the grounds of appeal and found that the sought information has not been furnished by the concerned CPIOs of NCSC for DA, Bengluru, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Puducherry, Srinagar, Vadodara and Shillong. Hence, the CPIOs are directed to supply the sought information within 10 days.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, US, CPIO and Mr. G.K. Mukerjee, AD, Employment, NCSC for DA, Delhi, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, AD, NCSC, Kanpur -

participated in the hearing.

The Appellant was neither present during the hearing nor reachable via telephone. The Respondent submitted that the information as available in their official record had already been duly furnished to the Appellant. Furthermore, as previously submitted before the Commission during adjudication of multiple cases filed by the same Appellant, the Respondent reiterated that the Appellant, a former employee of the Respondent public authority, has been persistently harassing the organization by filing numerous RTI Application approximately 780 in number. The Appellant has raised identical vague and frivolous queries in his RTI Application. The Respondent emphasized that this conduct