के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604103-Adjunct-I ADJUNCT DECISION Dr Sanjai Sharma … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: University of Delhi, N ew Delhi …ঋितवादीगण/Respondent Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 23.10.2023 FA : 14.12.2023 SA : 30.01.2024 Adjunct Hearing :

CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record

08.05.2025 Date of Adjunct Decision-I: 11.07.2025 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The instant matter is being pursued in furtherance of the following CIC decision issued on 07.04.2025:

1. “The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. “Copy of notification issued to account section for recovery of TA (Transport allowance) of non-teaching staff for covid 19 period with details of month for which TA have been recovered.

2. Copy of notification issued to employees to attend duty (describing reason for calling them) during the covid-19 period for those months for which TA paid to them.

3. Attendance record of those employees who attended college in physical mode for the period for which TA was paid to them.

4. Copy of notification send to individual employees informing/explaining reason to them for recovery of their TA for the Covid 19 period and their consent on the same.

5. Copy of note sheet placed before competent authority (Governing Body) for getting permission before recovery of TA and order/resolution thereof of competent authority/GB for the same….” etc.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 14.12.2023. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.01.2024.

4. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Prof. Sachin Mittal, CPIO & Subash Chandra Agarwal, RTI Consultant attended the hearing in person.

5. The Appellant relied on the exhaustive written submissions filed by him on

05.02.2025, stating inter alia as under:

“5. When the Second Appeal CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 and CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 dated 31.10.2023 of undersigned were listed for hearing on 14/06/2024 and the information is sent to both the parties then the in hurry and in a casual approach, PIO rejected the RTI application (filled online vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60011 dated 25.10.2023) on 03.06.2024 at 15.44.52 pm, simply by saying reason of rejection "Others" without uploading any document related to reply and has knowingly and intentionally mentioned that reply has attached while No documents of reply had been uploaded on the online portal. (Copy of screen shot is annexed as Annexudel for your kind reference).

6. Also, PIO had not supplied reply as he had mentioned online that reply is attached, through any means of communication to the undersigned. This is another falls statement had been written by PIO on online portal to mislead applicant.

7. On the same line and on the same day i.e. on 03.06.2024 within a gap of two hours, FAA disposed-off the Appeal of undersigned at 17:13:18 pm by saying in his decision that PIO has replied to the applicant vide DDUC/RTI/Reply/2013/256 dated

31.05.2024 which was never reached to applicant.

8. All the activities related to reply of RTI application and disposing of FA were performed after expire of the limit of days fixed in the RTI Act. RTI application is disposed of by the both responsible authorities after a long period that is nearly after a delay of eight months which is clear cut violation of rules established in the Act and all these are done deliberately, knowingly and intentionally to hide the information and escaped from accountability.

That not entertain of RTI application by the PIO shows his casual approach toward