Dated 04-10-2007

Name of the Complainant:
Shri Nabadhar Borah

Name of the Public Authority:
Gauhati University, Guwahati

The following were present:
1. Shri Nabadhar Borah, Complainant
2. Shri R.N. Das, Registrar, GU
3. Ms. Jyoti Talukdar, RTIO, GU

Brief of the case
A petition dated June 01, 2007 From Shri Nabadhar Borah, MSc, 17, M.L. Nehru Road, Guwahati was received in the Commission Office on 8.6.2007 stating that he had requested for some information from Gauhati University, but the information had not been provided to him. The Commission transferred this petition to Gauhati University on 5 July, 2007 U/S 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing the information as requested by the petitioner.

The petitioner Shri Borah submitted a complaint through another letter dated August 9, 2007 stating that the required information had not been furnished to him till date. On the basis of that complaint the hearing was fixed. The petitioner wanted information on the payment of his dues for the services rendered to the University as Examiner/Question Setter/Script Examiner. He had furnished two lists in that connection, the first list contained 33 items of work he had done from 1998 to 2005, out of which he had been paid for 27 only. He wanted to know the position of the remaining 6 duties he had performed and when it would be paid to him. In the second list he furnished 12 items of work from 1998 to 2002, out of which he had been paid for only 1 and the remaining 11 were yet to be paid. He wanted to know the position and when the remaining cheques would be issued.

Meanwhile, after receiving the notice form the Commission for hearing, the Gauhati University authorities vide their letter No.GU/LDC/R/-17/07/ dated 28/9/2007 informed the petitioner that the payment for the remaining items of work could not be made to him because of absence of corresponding bills and he was requested to submit duplicate bills.

Submission of the Parties
The Petitioner reiterated the points mentioned in his complaint. On a query by the Commission whether he could provide the details of the payment received by him in relation to the work which he had performed, he submitted that while issuing the cheque, the Gauhati University did not give him the details of job performed and for which the cheques had been issued. He received only the cheques and therefore it was not possible for him to give details of work for which he was yet to be paid/had been paid.

The Registrar of the University submitted that they could not trace out the original bills at this point of time because the period involved was from 1998 onwards. He was not sure whether the cheques had been issued without forwarding letters showing the item of work for which the cheque had been issued. He, however, mentioned that at present the payment was made along with the forwarding letters in which the items of work in relation to the cheques were mentioned. The Registrar wanted the cooperation of the complainant to sort out the issues and help them in tracing out the old records by showing them the old references if any that may be with him.

The Registrar and the SPIO assured that they would make earnest attempt to trace out the old bills and inform the Petitioner within a month's time. They however, requested that since there are number of holidays during this month, they may be given time till the middle of November, 2007.

Observation of the Commission
(i) The complainant submitted two lists of the work done by him. The first list contained 33 items out of which he had been paid for 27 with 6 remaining yet to be paid. In the second list there were 12 items out of which only 1 had been paid and 11 are yet to be paid. So the total number of cheques for which he was yet to be paid came to 17. In the list, in some cases, he had provided the reference to University letters, but in some cases only the type of duty he performed had been mentioned without any reference. Likewise, in the cheque received by him, only the cheque number, its date, the amount and the date he received had been provided without any references to the item of work for which the cheques had been issued.

(ii) As the matters related to the period from 1998 onwards without any reference of University letters engaging the petitioner for the duty and which he performed, it was difficult to identify for which particular item of work cheques were pending at this point of time. However, the University Registrar assured the Commission that they would try their utmost to locate the references and resolve the issues.

(iii) It was surprising that the University authorities engaged the experts for various jobs without providing them any written letter/authority. The cheques were also issued without any indication for which they were being issued. That was a confusing practice which should not continue.

Decision of the Commission
The Commission having considered the issued in its entirety decided to require the Public Authority/SPIO U/S.19(8)( a) to:

(i) Trace out the remaining 17 bills and inform the petitioner the position when the cheques would be issued.

(ii) In the event of failure of the Public Authority to trace out the bills, to conduct enquiry, fixed responsibility, take appropriate action against those responsible and inform the Commission. In case some records had been destroyed, produce the destruction certificate before the Commission.

(iii) Request the petitioner to assist in tracing out the old records by providing them any references that might be available with him. For this the Registrar/SPIO may contact the petitioner personally and fix a date for a meeting.

(iv) Comply with these directions by 15 November, 2007 and inform the Commission.

(v) The Commission also decided to require U/S.19(8)(a)(iv) of the RTI Act, the Vice Chancellor of Gauhati University to make necessary changes in the practices in relation to engagement of the examiners/question setters/script examiners by ensuring that such act is assigned only in writing and not verbally and to issue the cheques along with reference of work to avoid confusion enumerated herein.

If the Commission does not receive any information within the time limit set herein, the next date for the hearing would be fixed and the matter of imposing penalty U/S.20(1) decided in that hearing.

Sd/- (R.S. Mooshahary)
Chief Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.


Authenticated true copy

(Jiauddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

CC:
1. The Vice Chancellor, Gauhati University, Guwahati.
2. Shri R.N. Das, Registrar, Gauhati University, Guwahati.
3. Ms Jyoti Talukdar, RTIO, Gauhati University, Guwahati.
4. Shri Nabadhar Borah, 17, M.L. Nehru Road, Guwahati - 781 001.
5. The DIPR, Dispur, Assam
6. MD, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan.
7. Office file.


Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam