central information commission notice/rti/p.k._pandey_v._maulana_azad... · ophthalmology that...

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-SA CIC/DS/A/2013/001741-SA CIC/DS/A/2013/002561-SA

Appellant : P.K.Pandey Respondent : 1. Maulana Azad Medical College

2.Health & Family Welfare Dept., GNCTD Date of hearing : 13.8.2014, 2.09.2014 & 8.09.2014 Date of decision : 1.10.2014 Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Referred Sections : Section 3, 19(3) of the RTI Act Result : Appeal allowed / Disposed of Observation: Admonition and Condemnation of a highly educated doctor for his abuse of RTI. Summary of the decision: The appellant Dr PK Pandey in this case being a very highly educated doctor/professor, behaved in a most unreasonable manner, not showing any inclination to listen to reason, finding happiness in agonizing senior/colleague teachers/doctors who submitted their sufferings and harassment he has been inflicting on them since years without any legitimate goal or purpose. The Commission considers this case as the repetitive misuse of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act. The Commission finds him to be a cantankerous litigant and continuous trouble maker for the office and colleagues.

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

The Commission observes that all three victims of his repeated nuisance applications have every right to pursue for their remedies under both civil and criminal law. They complained that the RTI in his hands got converted into a tool of oppression and intimidation of honest doctors. As per the Madras HC in P. Jayasankar Vs Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and Gunaseelan, I.P.S. [W.P. Nos. 3776 and 3778 of 2013], this abusive applicant deserves to be disqualified. But the Commissioner desist from disqualifying him, hoping that he would not create such situation in future and for now

a) records its admonition and condemnation of this cantankerous individual for his misuse of RTI which is highly unbecoming of the education he acquired, and

b) records a stern warning that any such attempt to harass the colleagues with same or similar RTI application would be viewed as serious obstruction to activity of public authority and appropriate action as per law and judicial interpretation shall be taken against him.

The Commission directs the public authority to a) put this order along with affidavits of the doctors, and the

responses given to hid earlier RTI requests in public domain i.e., official website,

b) send copies to the concerned Directorate & others, the officers who were harassed by him and

c) place a copy on notice board at a conspicuous place for understanding of general people and

d) reject or reply any future repetitive RTI requests, if any, from this appellant in future with reference to this order.

Besides, the Commission recommends the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against him for this kind of indiscipline examining whether this amounts to misconduct because his continuous misuse of RTI is resulting in obstruction of activities of the public authority, causing criminal waste of time of PIO, his colleagues and the CIC, and inform the progress to the Commission. Any non compliance of this order would lead to action under Section 20 of RTI Act, and any victim officer of his harassment is under a duty to report against non-compliance of this order. Heard on 13.8.14. Appellant present

[CIC/DS/A/2013/001740 - SA]. Respondent is represented by Shri

H. R. Sharma and several officers at different times. For last two

hearings [in CIC/DS/A/2013/001741 – SA &

CIC/DS/A/2013/002561 – SA] including this appellant, though

received the hearing notice, chose to be absent. In continuation of

his habit of filing complaints and making irresponsible remarks

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

against all officers, he filed request to transfer the second appeal

from this commission with baseless allegation that for ‘extraneous

reasons’ the Commission is supporting the respondent public

authority. The Commission dismisses his allegations as irresponsible

similar to his abuse of right to information.

Common Order is passed for all the three Appeals as the nature of

information sought through the RTI applications are the same and

the parties involved are also the same.

2. The Appellant, a senior Doctor, filed an RTI application

dt.2.7.2013 with the PIO, Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD/

Maulana Azad Medical College (hereinafter referred as MAMC)

seeking information on eleven points [CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-

SA & 001741-SA] with respect to his original application for

furnishing information U/S 2 (f)(i)(j), 4(1)(b)(d), 7(1)(9) of RTI Act

2005 on action taken on appellants 1st reminder dated 17-06-2013

no. GAD/2013/24640/19-8 and representation dated 27.2.13 to

Chief Secretary, GNCT, regarding Ghost (that is how he described

in his applications) employment in GNCT, Dept. of Health, sans

post for 23 years, freak promotions and pay fixation under

FR 22 against 3 non-existent temporary post of assistant

professors in ophthalmology that ceased to exist as on 1. 3.

1990 at M.A.M.C. Viz (i) File Noting made at GNCT, Deptt. Of

Health & FW in relation to the representation dated 27-02-2013 and

1st reminder dated 17-06-2013 to Chief Secretary , GNCT, (ii)

Decisions taken by GNCT, Health Dept to continue/discontinue with

ghost employment as director professor for Drs Kamlesh and Mrs

Uma against non-existent temporary post of assistant professor

carrying a fixed sanctioned time scale, that ceased to exist as on 1-

3-90. etc. The PIO responded on 19.7.13 & 1.8.2013. Not satisfied

with, he filed an appeal on 31.7.2013 & 12.8.2013 with the First

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

Appellate Authority of the respective Public authority, who disposed

it of vide order dt.9.9.13 & 30.8.2013.

3 In CIC/DS/A/2013/002561-SA, the appellant had filed

RTI application dated 12-8-2013 with MAMC regarding Original

application for furnishing information U/S 2 (f)(i)(j), 4(1)(b)(d),

7(1)(9) of RTI Act 2005 on action taken on appellants 1st reminder

dated 17-06-2013 no. GAD/2013/24640/19-8 and representation

dated 27.2.13 to Chief Secretary, GNCT, regarding ‘Ghost’

employment in GNCT, Dept. Of Health, sans post for 23

years, freak promotions and pay fixation under FR 22 against

3 non-existent temporary post of assistant professors in

ophthalmology that ceased to exist as on 1 3 90 at M.A.M.C

Viz (i) total number of existing faculty post at MAMC, New Delhi (ii)

Break up of existing temporary and permanent faculty post at

MAMC & (iii) Break up of existing posts, those of CHS and those

sanctioned by DA/GNCT etc. PIO responded on 11-09-2013. Being

unsatisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the appellant

preferred First Appeal on 14-09-2013. FAA in his Order dated 08-

10-2013 stated that Information available has been given to the

appellant and thereafter he directed that as much information as is

available be given to the appellant.

4. The Commission on perusal of the information sought

observed that the same has been furnished earlier in response to

his various RTI applications. It is the Appellant’s contention that

three persons were appointed in certain posts which were not

sanctioned and it is his belief that once it is established that the

posts were not sanctioned, the people occupying those posts for

several years would lose them. At the first instance it appears as if

appellant was exposing an irregularity, but after asking some

questions to him and respondents, it is discovered there was

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

nothing like that and his questions sans public interest. With

irresponsible repetitions it assumed serious form of abuse that can

be classified as frivolous, vexatious and annoying. It also causes

mental injury to the officers who were in those posts creating a

baseless apprehension that they might lost their posts because of

this persons perceived technical problem, which in fact was

nobody’s case. Three of his senior colleagues represented to

Commission in his presence how they were being harassed and put

to constant trouble of doubt and uncertainty just for the sake of

that by his repetitive applications under RTI and other fora. They

called it as a kind of sadism. They made written submissions also.

5. Dr. Usha Yadava (Professor, M.A.M.C) in her written

statement submitted before the Commission has stated that :

a. The appellant who is a junior officer to her has been filing

complaints and representations incessantly on such grounds,

which are false and baseless.

b. She submitted that the representations filed by him before

the Cadre Controlling Authority i.e MHFW, Government of

India, led to MHFW baring him from filling further

representations vide its Order No. A 12034/26/2010 – CHS

III dated 25-05-2012.

c. She also stated that Dr Pandey (appellant) has moved from

pillar to post in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

High Court, and in the past, the appellant had moved the

Supreme Court on the same matter and topic. His O.A 1284

of 1997 before the CAT, his Writ Petition before the Delhi

High Court (W.P(C) No. 4023 of 2011) were all dismissed

through concurrent findings.

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

d. She further submitted that even after the ruling of the Delhi

High Court, he has filed numerous requests under the Right

to Information Act, before the M.A.M.C, on the same issue on

which relief was denied to him by the court, in order to

further harass her and the officials and further create

problems in the functioning of the institute.

e. That the behavior of the appellant is not becoming of a senior

officer, this compulsive behavior must be stopped for the

proper functioning of the M.A.M.C and Guru Nanak Eye

Centre. Urgent action in this regard is also required so that

the undersigned and all the parties, including Dr. Pandey, can

return to the proper discharge of their day to day activities

without further delay, in the general interest of the public and

the hundreds of patients that are waiting to be treated at the

Guru Nanak Eye Centre. The current state of events mean

that substantial manpower and resources – all at the cost of

taxpayer – are wasted on the issue even after the ruling of

the judicial bodies i.e CAT and Delhi H.C. In order to carry

out the work assigned to each doctor by the Union of India,

such repeated attempts to harass render it extremely difficult

to carry out medical duties.

f. On the basis of above facts and circumstances, “I request

that Dr. Pandey may kindly be restricted and be barred from

filing further requests under the RTI Act I respect of this

matter before any Competent authority at once, and do

justice to general public, officers/other officials of the MAMC”.

6. Shri. Hans Raj Singh, Head of Office in Maulana Azad Medical

College, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in his affidavit submitted before the

Commission as follows:

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

a. That Dr P. K Pandey is habitual in filing RTI applications

against Dr. Kamlesh and Dr Usha Yadava, both are working

as Director-Professor in Ophthalmology Department.

b. That Dr Pandey is not satisfied with the replies provided by

the SPIO, MAMC and is frequently filling First Appeal before

the First Appellate Authority, MAMC against his RTI

applications.

c. That Dr. Pandey preferring Second Appeals before the Central

Information Commission.

d. That in the department Dr Pandey has filed numerious RTI’s

before Various SPIO in various Govt. Department.

e. That due to the filling of RTI’s by Dr Pandey, the work of

Guru Nanak Eye Centre is hampered due to personally

attending appeals in CIC and various Courts by Dr. Pandey,

Dr Kamlesh and Dr. Usha Yadava as they have to attend

OPD, Operation theatre and other duties assigned to them.

That due to appeal, SPIO, APIO and two-three other officials

of the MAMC are regularly attending CIC and other courts due

to this litigation work of office is badly hampered.

f. That Dr. Pandey had filed cases in Central Administrative

Tribunal (CAT) and after dismissal, he filed OA before

Principal Bench, CAT. After dismissal of that OA, he has

moved to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and its Principal bench

of CAT, there also, the case was dismissed and now, he filed

SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the

matter is sub-judice. Earlier, he filed several representations

before various Competent authorities and his cadre

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

controlling authority has rejected his representation and was

barred for filling representations before GOI.

g. That in the directions of the higher authority at the level of

the state government, a warning was also issued by Dy.

Director of Administration, MAMC for desisting him from

these type of activities.

h. That mostly Dr. Pandey had filed RTI on the similar issues i.e

Regarding employment and ghost posts.

7. Dr Kamlesh in her written submission before the Commission

have submitted as follows :

a. She was working as Director-Professor (Ophthalmology) at

MAMC with total service of more than 30 years.

b. That she and her Colleague Prof. Usha Yadava were being

harassed by routine RTI applications by the appellant

repeatedly on the same subject and issues with little twisting

of facts for more than 6 years.

c. That the appellant was only putting the applications before

MAMC, but also before Health Ministry, Delhi, Govt. of India,

M/O Health, Secretaries of Health both at the Centre and the

state, Lt. Governor’s Office, Chief Secretary, Delhi and others

resulting in huge loss of time and manpower which could

have been utilized for so many public cause.

d. That the appellant was misusing the RTI and misguiding,

threatening and harassing the officials in the name of RTI

with the intention of getting false documents for his favour

with clear intention to defame me.

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

e. That he was also warned by the Ministry not to do so

especially when all the relevant information has been

provided to him. That the appellant had examined all my

personal files including the service book many a times and

obtained the required information as he desired. The

appellant had also taken the matter of Seniority with these

documents to the court twice including review petition and his

application was dismissed twice.

f. That the appellant has filed the same matter as agreed to

gain seniority on the basis of irrelevant and baseless grounds

because of his one directional misunderstanding and

delusional thoughts.

g. That the appellant has caused lot of disturbance and

harassment, as we are the senior most faculties with lot of

clinical, surgical, academic, research and administrative work

which are disturbed due to these baseless and repeated RTI

applications on the same issue to defame us especially when

all the available information has been provided.

h. It is therefore, requested that Dr. P.K Pandey be debarred

from filing such RTI applications in future and warn him not

to misuse the power of RTI Act.

8. The Commission in its earlier order

No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA delivered on 25-6-2014 in the

case of R.C.Jain Vs. DTC, with respect to RTI applications which

are repetitive and harassing in nature had observed as follows :

“Repetitive use of RTI an ABUSE

5. The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act, by a disgruntled employee. 6. The respondent officers made fervent appeals to the Commission that they were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles; and about individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance. The Commission found that the applicant was one of the four disgruntled employees against whom action was taken or their claims were denied.

RTI: Not a rendezvous of disgruntled elements

7. …. The Commission also noted an atmosphere of fear and worry was spread in the offices and the officers are hesitating to take action against erring staff members for fear of facing flood of questions under RTI. ….. …

Placing RTI abusers information in public domain

9. To address the problem of ‘harassing & repeated questions’, the Commission recommends the respondent authority to analyze all the RTI applications filed by such appellants, compile all the questions contained therein and indicate the information provided against them. That consolidated information along with a background note based on facts, avoiding unfounded allegations should also be placed on website besides sending a copy to the applicant and the concerned Information Commission. The Commission also recommends exhibiting such information in their notice board at the entrance or at any conspicuous place in their office and posting a photograph of such a notification on the website. 10. The entire information about the repeated RTI questions by appellants, and the documents given by the Public authority, the private interest of the appellants, if any, lack of public interest in the said RTI applications, etc. also should be kept in the public domain, so that people do not resort to filing repeated vexatious RTI applications leading to clogging of the public authority and depriving them of their valuable time that could have been spent on performance of their regular duties. The information in website also will serve as response to repeated RTI question. The same may be referred in the responses to first and second appeals. ….

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

Res judicata = already decided

12. …. Though Right to Information Act, 2005 did not have any specific provision to bar the re-petition for information like Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the universal principle of civil justice ‘res judicata’ will certainly apply and the repeated request need to be rejected with an emphasis. Two Latin maxims form the basis of this rule, they are: ‘interest republicae ut sit finis litium’ (= it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and ‘nemo devet vis vexari pro una et eadem cause” (=no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause). If the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions entertain the repeated RTI applications, there will be no end to the information litigation and the public authorities would be continuously taxed for no fault of them. .... 14. The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the information received, file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority as the uncertainty continues. Even the PIO of Central Information Commission is flooded with such repeated questions from thousands angles by same person running into hundreds of RTI applications. As the PIOs went on answering, more and more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing. ….

No scope for repeating under RTI Act 21. The Commission thus holds that though RTI Act, did not specifically provide as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the objective and various provisions of RTI Act, that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly. ….

Commission shall record ABUSE, admonish ABUSER 25. There is no provision in RTI Act, 2005 to penalize the applicant for abusing his right to information or clogging public office. However the Commission recommends that the fact of abuse of RTI Act, 2005 shall be recorded and Commission should notify the admonition, direction or recommendation if any, to the applicants not to resort to abuse anymore along with recommendation to public authorities to refuse such questions. If any applicant resorts to three such repeated RTI applications, the Commission may even recommend blocking

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

of such abuse and direct the public authority not to entertain the same applicant anymore, which also has to be notified.

Waste of public time and obstructing RTI

26. All the above discussion can be consolidated into: (i) Even a single repetition of RTI application would

demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.

(ii) Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction of flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.

Citizen has no Right to Repeat

27….. this Commission observes: (i) The citizen do not have a right to repeat the same or

similar or slightly altered information request under RTI Act, 2005, for which he already got response.

(ii) Once an RTI application is answered, the appellants shall refrain themselves from filing another RTI application against the public authority as once information is received and held by them or posted in public domain, because such information is deemed to have ceased to be ‘held’ by the public authority.

Repetition shall be ground of refusal (iii) Such repetition shall be considered as reasonable ground

of refusal under the RTI Act. (iv) An applicant or appellant repeating the RTI application or

appeal either once or multiple times, suppressing the fact of earlier application and receipt of the answer, the CPIO of public authority shall reject it forthwith after intimating it along with reasons.

Appeals can be rejected (v) The First Appellate Authority and Commission shall be right

and reasonable to consider this as a ground for rejecting the first or second appeal, respectively among other reasons if any. “

9. The appellant in this case being a very highly educated doctor,

behaved in a most unreasonable manner, not showing any inclination

to listen to reason, finding happiness when his agonized colleagues

were explaining the sufferings and harassment he has been inflicting

on them since years without any goal or purpose. They argued that

assuming that there was no technical sanction for their posts, his

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

belief that they would be thrown out would be nothing but wild

delusion. When they were appointed by a duly constituted select

committee they would get a right to employment which cannot be

deprived of by deficiency if any and it will become a legitimate duty of

employer to rectify the deficiency and continue the employment. They

said that he finds enjoyment by putting all three of the colleagues in

mental agony. They pleaded to put an end to the torture.

10. When Commission tried to tell him that RTI did not provide for

repeating same RTI application after procuring information as that

information was already held by him, he was not inclined to

understand and filed some more such petitions.

11. The Commission finds him to be a cantankerous litigant and

continuous trouble maker for the office and colleagues. He

deserves to be disqualified as abuser of RTI being an obstruction in

public activities of the office. It appears from his numerous petitions

before numerous fora on the same subject that he might have left with

no time to perform the duty of ophthalmological doctor and professor,

as per his designation to the extent that time was consumed by his

frivolous and vexatious applications. Besides dereliction of duties, he is

also creating nuisance obstructing others from performing their duties

with free mind and in fearless atmosphere. The Commission finds

there is substance in their agony that he remained a pain and speed

breaker and major nuisance in the office, performance of service by

him could be doubted as he spends all his time in filing frivolous

applications, discussing about it with others and thus rendering

disservice to the hospital. The Commission finds that any amount of

condemnation for unreasonable conduct of this educated person is

insufficient in this case. The Commission notes that persons like him

will create disbelief and destroy the faith in RTI and other legal

mechanisms. The Commission observes that all victims of his

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

repeated nuisance applications have every right to pursue for their

remedies in both civil and criminal proceedings against him. They can

examine whether his repeated petitions would fall under the definition

of a crime under Section 167 of Indian Penal Code which deals with

the public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause

injury, for which a punishment of imprisonment up to three years is

prescribed. His actions also might fall under the crime of public

nuisance under Section 268 as his acts cause injury, obstruction, or

annoyance to persons in the vicinity, for which punishment is provided

under Section 290 of IPC. Section 353 of IPC punishes a person who

assaults (creating an apprehension in the mind) with intent to prevent

or deter that person from discharging his duty as public servant, with

imprisonment up to two years. Three senior doctors are alleging that

by filing frivolous applications he is obstructing them from discharging

their duties as public servants. Besides, an atmosphere of serious

indiscipline is prevailing in office as he continuously obstructs the

public servants from performing their duties with these kind of

frivolous, vexatious mischievous petitions.

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay,

(2011) 8 SCC 497, while explaining the significance of RTI had also

observed as follows:

“67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”

13. The Commission observes that the repeated questions under

RTI unrelated to transparency, devoid of public interest, full of

reasonless personal animosity against colleagues, besides filing

petitions before various fora, will amount to indiscriminate abuse of

RTI which become a tool to obstruct the work in the office and to

destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among the doctors

working in the respondent authority institution and RTI in his hands

got converted into a tool of oppression and intimidation of honest

doctors who are striving to perform their duties.

14. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in SHAIL SAHNI Vs. SANJEEV

KUMAR AND ORS. [W.P.(C) 845/2014] with regard to the Misuse

of the RTI Act had observed as follows :

“10. … This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be

appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this “sunshine Act”. A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen.”

15. The Commission finds that it is the duty of the Commission to

see that such blatant misuse of RTI Act should not be allowed

further and such situation need to be appropriately dealt with to

secure the faith of the public in this ‘Sun shine Act’ and remove

obstacles in functioning of public authority which would eventually

prevent public authority from focusing on transparency.

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

DECISION :

16. As per the Madras HC judgment in P. Jayasankar Vs Chief

Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and Gunaseelan,

I.P.S. [W.P. Nos. 3776 and 3778 of 2013], this abusive

applicant deserves to be disqualified.

But the Commission desist from disqualifying him, hoping that he

would not create such situation in future and for now

a) records its admonition and condemnation of this

cantankerous individual for his misuse of RTI which is

highly unbecoming of the education he acquired, and

b) records a stern warning that any such attempt to harass

the colleagues with same or similar RTI application would be

viewed as serious obstruction to activity of public authority

and appropriate action as per law and judicial

interpretation shall be taken against him.

17. The Commission directs the public authority to

a) put this order along with affidavits of the doctors, and the

responses given to hid earlier RTI requests in public domain

i.e., official website,

b) send copies to the concerned Directorate & others, the

officers who were harassed by him and

c) place a copy on notice board at a conspicuous place for

understanding of general people and

d) reject or reply any future repetitive RTI requests, if any, from

this appellant in future with reference to this order.

18. Besides, the Commission recommends the public authority to

initiate disciplinary action against him for this kind of indiscipline

examining whether this amounts to misconduct because his continuous

misuse of RTI is resulting in obstruction of activities of the public

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

authority, causing criminal waste of time of PIO, his colleagues and the

CIC, and inform the progress to the Commission. Any non compliance

of this order would lead to action under Section 20 of RTI Act, and any

victim officer of his harassment is under a duty to report against non-

compliance of this order.

19. With above observations the Commission holds that adequate

and available information has been furnished to the appellant,

though he deserves no information as such, and accordingly the

cases are closed.

Sd/-

M. Sridhar Acharyulu Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Dy. Registrar

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561

Address of the parties 1. The CPIO Department of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of NCT of Delhi 9th Level, A-Wing Delhi Secretariat IP Estate New Delhi 2. Prof. P.K.Pandey A-170, Pocket-04 Mayur Vihar Phase-I New Delhi

central information commission notice/rti/p.k._pandey_v._maulana_azad... · ophthalmology that...

Documents