Expressing surprise over a very regressive order by Delhi's Education Department, the Commission hoped that the education director would review the decision with some rationality. This is the 40th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application
The Central Information Commission (CIC), while expressing surprise over a bizarre order, asked the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Directorate of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), to provide details of the advertisement under which the recruitment on a contractual basis was done. While giving this important judgement, Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner, expressed hope that the Director of Education would also review the order with some rationality.
Allowing the appeal, the CIC in its order issued on 13 August 2009, said, “Dr KS Yadav (the PIO) will send the information to the appellant before 5 September 2009.”
Delhi resident Geeta Devi sought information from the Directorate of Education, GNCTD about her letter and an advertisement for recruitment. She sought following information...
1. Action taken by the Directorate on letter dated 6 November 2008.
2. Details of the advertisement number under which the recruitment on a contractual basis was done by the Directorate.
The PIO did not reply. Geeta Devi then filed her first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA, in his order on 24 April 2009, said, “The appellant has not mentioned the name of the PIO against whom the appeal was referred. Therefore, the FAA is not in a position to take any action.”
Due to non-receipt of information from the PIO and no action taken by the FAA, Geeta Devi, then approached the CIC with her second appeal.
During a hearing on 23 June 2009, the PIO stated that he had sent reply to Geeta Devi on 16 February in response of query no1, but query no2 was no replied at all.
From the information produced before the Commission, which was claimed to have been sent to the appellant, Mr Gandhi, the CIC found that that Rajendra Kumar, the then Director of Education by Diktat of 20 October 2003 had instructed all principals and education officers not to issue any experience certificates to teachers who have worked in government schools.
“This appears to be a very regressive order and the Commission desires that Chandra Bhushan Kumar, the Director of Education, reviews this decision with some rationality,” Mr Gandhi said.
While allowing Geeta Devi's appeal, the Commission directed the PIO to provide complete information to the appellant before 5 September 2009.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001571/4445
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001571
Appellant : Geeta Devi
Respondent : Dr KS Yadav
Directorate of Education, GNCTD,
District (West -A) Education,
Karampura, Motinagar, New Delhi
Reebok India had filed an FIR alleging fraud by its former managing director Subhinder Singh Prem and Bhagat. Both of them have denied the charges
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has issued a show-cause notice to Reebok India’s former chief financial officer Vishnu Bhagat regarding the alleged Rs870 crore fraud at the sportswear manufacturer last year.
“We have issued show-cause notice to Reebok’s former CFO Vishnu Bhagat and he has sought time till 31 March 2013 (to reply),” ICAI president Subodh Kumar Agrawal said in Delhi yesterday.
“From what information the (former) CFO gives, the written information, then if we find there is a case against the auditor... Then (we will take action),” Agrawal said.
The external auditor for Reebok is N Narasimhan & Co, he added.
Earlier, Reebok India had filed an FIR alleging fraud by its former managing director Subhinder Singh Prem and Bhagat. Both of them have denied the charges.
“If there is some failure and we find that the auditor did not work diligently, then we take action against them,” he added.
He also stressed that ICAI has taken action against auditors in the Satyam fraud case.
The bankers, who in Mumbai on Tuesday, said they had given the airline sufficient time for a fresh equity injection, but there was no headway. Meanwhile, a top banking official said the value of the Kingfisher brand and the personal guarantee of Mr Mallya was more than the exposure
A consortium of banks, which has lent nearly Rs7,000 crore to Vijay Mallya-led Kingfisher Airlines, is considering recalling the loans. The lenders, led by State Bank of India (SBI), are reportedly meeting today to draw up an action plan.
The bankers, who met the airline’s management in Mumbai on Tuesday, said they had given the airline sufficient time for a fresh equity injection. But there was no headway. Meanwhile, SBI deputy managing director Shyamal Acharya said the value of the Kingfisher brand and the personal guarantee of Mr Mallya was more than the exposure.
On the other hand, the Kingfisher management said the airline would wait for an official communication from the banks before finalizing its move.
The debt-laden airline has been grounded since October 2012 after its licence was suspended by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and a strike by its employees due to overdue salaries. The airline’s license expired on 31st December after the government refused to renew it.
A loan recall means that the borrower has to repay loans immediately. However, a top-level official of a large public sector bank said the recovery process would not be easy and would take time. Most banks have already classified KFA loans as non-performing assets and made provisions for the account.