news details |
|
|
| CIC issues show cause notice to MHRD in Prof Aslam's case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Mar 31: The Central Information Commission (CIC) in its order dated 29 March, 2016 has directed the respondent authority (MHRD) to provide copy of inquiry report to Prof Aslam, and submit action taken report which is supposed to have been taken as per the undertakings given to Delhi High Court and its directions.
"The Commission directed the PIO to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not providing copy of inquiry report, because of which he could no defend his case effectively and losing his term as Vice Chacellor."
The Commission also directed Public Authority MHRD, "why it should not be directed to pay compensation to appellant equivalent to honor and prestige of IGNOU and that of appellant."
The Commission also sought compliance report which should reach the Commission by April 26 and further fixed the next date of hearing for compliance to April 27 at 2.30 pm.
As per brief facts of case, Professor M Aslam under RTI Act had sought copy of each of the allegations received on the functioning of IGNOU along with a copy of the note sent to the Visitor (President of India) in response to which he was asked to proceed on leave from MHRD in December 2014. He was informed by MHRD that the information cannot be provided at this stage in view of section 8(1)(h) until the inquiry report is made available by the inquiry officer to the Ministry. He was not satisfied with the response and approached CIC on 27th May 2015. At the same he also waited for the report to be submitted by Inquiry Officer to MHRD. The report was received by MHRD in September, 2015.
Meantime Dr Aslam in his RTI Reply received CPIO's reply on 22/12/2015 saying that the required information cannot be shared at this stage since the same is still considered confidential. He then again approached CIC in January, 2016 and the CIC directed CPIO, MHRD to appear before the Commission on this February 24. While as appellant was present, the Public Authority (MHRD) was not represented, The Commission heard appellant (Prof Aslam) and directed the respondents (MHRD) to provide copy of inquiry report to Prof Aslam, and submit action taken report passed the above order.
The Commission also observed that principles of natural justice demand that a Vice chancellor who was directed to go on leave should be informed about the reasons and allegations or copy of inquiry report within reasonable time. The MHRD should have shown some respect to the appellant Vice Chancellor at least to his age, education and eminence, comply with their own undertakings before the Delhi High Court and fulfill their obligations under Right to Information Act. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
