Central Information Commission
Smt. Sarla Rastogi vs E.S.I.C. on 15 October, 2008
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
(Adjunct to Decision No.3267/IC(A)/2008 dated 11/09/2008)
Decision No.3372/IC(A)/2008
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2008/01106
Dated, the 15th October, 2008
Name of the Appellant: Smt. Sarla Rastogi
Name of the Public Authority: E.S.I.C.
Facts: i
1. The appellant, a retired employee of the respondent, has sought for certain information, which pertains to her grievances while she was in service. In brief, she has sought to know, among others, the reasons for depriving her entitlements for OTA and brief case.
2. The CPIO furnished partial information within the stipulated period of thirty days while the remaining information could not be given, as it was not available in his office. There was inordinate delay in procuring the information from other offices, i.e. the custodians of information, where the appellant was earlier working. Being not satisfied with the responses, she submitted her appeal before the Commission.
3. In our Decision No.3267/IC(A)/2008 dated 11th September, 2008 the following observations were made:
• Under section 4(1)(d) of the Act, an appellant is free to ask for reasons for any administrative decisions taken by a public authority. Accordingly, the information asked for have been furnished and there is no denial of information u/s 8(1) of the Act.
• The appellant is, however, free to inspect the relevant documents, to ascertain as to whether the respondent has correctly indicated the reasons for denial of briefcase and/or non-payment of honorarium for overtime work, as claimed by her. She can also verify and scrutinize the i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1 manner in which her complaint against the identified official has been examined by the respondent.
• The CPIO is directed to allow inspection of the relevant records within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision.
• Both the parties should mutually decide a convenient date and time for inspection of the relevant records and files.
• The RTI application dated November 16, 2007, was replied on April 28, 2008. As per the provisions of the Act, the CPIO should have responded within 30 days. Since there is a delay of over five months, the CPIO is held responsible for violation of section 7(1) of the Act, which requires that information should be furnished within 30 days. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to show cause as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s 20(1) of the Act, should not be imposed on him for the delay in furnishing the information. He should submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 15th October 2008 12.30 p.m. In case, the delay in furnishing information is due to the custodian of information, who is a deemed PIO u/s 5(4) of the Act, he should also be informed and asked to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for delay in providing the information.
• It has also observed that when the CPIO did not reply within one month, the appellant submitted her first appeal on February 13, 2008, in response to which the CPIO replied on April 28, 2008 and the Appellate Authority replied on May 27, 2008. Over a period, the appellant has clearly suffered all kinds of harassment in seeking information, the Appellate Authority or his nominee should explain on behalf of the respondent, as to why a suitable compensation of Rs.5000/- u/s 19 (8)(b) of the Act, should not be awarded to the appellant for all kinds of losses and detriment suffered by her.
4. In response to the show cause notice to the CPIO & the Appellate Authority, as above, the following were present in the hearing on 15.10.2008:
Appellant : Ms. Sarla Rastogi
Respondents : Sh. B.D. Sharma, Director & CPIO
Sh. M.R. Sharma, Jt. Director, ESIH, Jhilmil
Sh. V.K. Sharma
5. The respondents made oral and written submissions to provide explanation in respect of the following issues that were identified on the basis of the facts of the case:
2i) Whether the information asked for have been furnished;
ii) Whether there is willful denial of information in violation of Section 7(1) by the CPIO to justify imposition of penalty u/s 20(1) of the Act on him; and
iii) Whether the appellant has suffered losses and harassment in seeking information, which required to be compensated under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act by the respondent.
6. In the course of hearing, the CPIO stated that there was no intentional delay in providing the information. The information asked for has already been furnished on the basis of available records. Inspection of the relevant documents has also been allowed to her. There is, thus, no denial of information, he said.
7. As regards the delay in providing the information is concerned, the CPIO said that a part of information pertained to the Jhilmil Hospital, which was obtained and furnished to the appellant. Since the information was not available in the HQs, where the application was submitted, the information could not be provided. He also said that the appellant being an ex-employee was well aware of the custodian of information and she should have accordingly approached the concerned CPIO for the information in order to avoid any delay in furnishing the information. He also said that the appellant has certain grievances relating to the period prior to her retirement and the issues raised by her pertain to alleged misuse of staff car by an officer, who has expired. He also stated that the appellant has grievances relating to non-payment of OTA and a briefcase as per her entitlement. The reasons for not acceding to her request have already been indicated and the relevant records have also been shown to her.
8. The appellant, however, reiterated that she was discriminated in the matter of providing OTA and a briefcase and that she was also harassed during the period of her service.
Decision Notice:
9. The respondent has provided access to the relevant documents and allowed inspection of records. On the basis of available documents, the required information has been furnished. The appellant has duly submitted a satisfaction report. Thus, the issue relating to disclosure of information is, accordingly, decided.
10. As regards the issue relating to imposition of penalty on the CPIO u/s 20(1) is concerned, it is noted that there has been inordinate delay in providing the information. Since the information asked for pertained to different constituent offices of the respondent, the CPIO has made attempts to procure information which caused some delay in providing a part of information while the relevant information available in his office was provided within the stipulated period. The delay in providing information thus cannot be termed as intentional. Also, being 3 an ex-employee of the respondent, the appellant knew as to who was the custodian of information, yet she did not put up application for information to the concerned CPIO. Had she directly submitted the application for information to the concerned CPIO, the delay in providing information could have been avoided. In view of this, the CPIO's plea for condonation of penalty u/s 20(1) of the Act is accepted, as there was no intentional delay on his behalf in providing information that was available in his office. The penalty proceeding is, therefore, dropped.
11. On perusal of the documents relating to the processing of papers for providing such benefits as OTA/compensatory leave and a briefcase as per entitlement of the appellant, it is evident that there was undue slow progress in processing of the case, which resulted in loss of time and consequent deprivation of benefits to the appellant. The concerned officials of the respondent were surely aware of the date of retirement of the appellant. Due to lack of empathy, the decision was not taken to deprive her of the benefits. Whereas a senior officer has favoured the payment of OTA, the respondent took a view that she was not eligible for such benefits. It reflects lack of clarity about her rights for claim of compensation in lieu of overtime work.
12. When the appellant sought to know "the reasons for depriving her from the entitled dues i.e. briefcase and OTA, the respondent has reluctantly allowed access to the relevant files, only after the necessary direction was passed by this Commission. Clearly, such an attitude has contributed to the alleged delay in providing information. It also shows lack of accountability of the respondent, as timely action was not taken on different pretexts by the concerned officials of the respondent to provide for the entitlements of the appellant while she was in service.
13. While the RTI Act seeks to promote accountability of the public authorities, in the instant case, there is sufficient evidence of lack of accountability. And, therefore, the concerned officials were hesitant to disclose the documents pertaining to the decision making process in the matter of providing the said benefits to the appellant.
14. The respondent is, therefore, held responsible for both lack of accountability in taking prompt decision in the matter of assuring entitlements to its employee, i.e. the appellant and also for the delay in allowing scrutiny of its decision making process. In the process of seeking information the appellant has, therefore, suffered harassment and incurred loss of resources - time and money - for pursuing her RTI application. This loss should be compensated u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act. The Director General of ESIC, on behalf of the respondent, is, therefore, directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the appellant through a Bank Draft in favour of the appellant latest by 30th November 2008, failing which a penal interest of ten per cent per annum would be applicable.
415. A compliance report should be submitted by the CPIO within ten days from the date of payment of the above amount of compensation to the appellant.
16. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Ms. Sarla Rastogi, 51-B, Pocket-B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi - 110 095.
2. Sh. B.D. Sharma, Director & CPIO, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi-110 002.
3. Sh. A.J. Pawar, Insurance Commissioner & Appellate Authority, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi - 110 002.
4. The Director General, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi - 110 002.
ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 5