Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Kapil Agnihotri vs Gnctd on 16 November, 2018

                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                      Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
                            New Delhi-110067
                                           F. No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/162095
Date of Hearing                      :   18.05.2018
Date of Decision                     :   18.06.2018

Date of Hearing (Show Cause)         :   13.09.2018
Date of Decision (Show Cause)        :   14.11.2018

Appellant/Complainant                :   Kapil Agnihotri
Respondent                           :   PIO
                                         Health & Family Welfare
                                         Department
                                         GNCTD
Information Commissioner             :   Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on             :   09.05.2017
PIO replied on                       :   27.06.2017
First Appeal filed on                :   13.06.2017
First Appellate Order on             :   31.07.2017
2nd Appeal/complaint received on     :   05.09.2017

Information sought

and background of the case:

Vide RTI application dated 09.05.2017, the appellant sought following information:-

1. How the consolidated pay of LA of the HFW department has been calculated the breakup of the same may be provided?

2. The inspection of file may also be allowed in which pay has been calculated

3. Also confirm that the pay has been calculated as per the guidelines of Finance Department of GNCTD.

4. Why pay has not been revised as per existing rules/regulations while renewing the contract.

PIO (H&FW) vide letter dated 27.06.2017 furnished information as received from Superintendent (Admn) as under:-

1. Information sought is not covered under Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.

2. & 3. Information sought is not clear.

4.Information sought is not covered under Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.

Appellant received reply of CPIO after filing first appeal. FAA vide letter dated 31.07.2017 informed that information sought is basic information which should be provided by the HR Branch of the Health & Family Welfare Department which has dealt with his engagement as Legal Assistant. Further, FAA directed the PIO to provide calculation of his consolidated pay and breakup, if any, as well as the basis of arriving at consolidated pay within 15 days and appellant may also allowed inspection of the concerned file relating to the calculation of his pay. In compliance of FAO, the APIO, Supdt. (Admn) vide letter dated 26.07.2017 furnished copy of agreement of appointment mentioning salary for the post of Legal Asstt. on contract basis and in response to point no. 2 requested to inspect the file record. Further in response to point no. 3 & 4 stated that information does not cover under RTI Act. Still aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

The appellant is present with his father Shri Shyam Agnihotri. The respondent is absent despite notice. The father of appellant states that his son was appointed as Legal Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, GNCTD on contract basis and he sought break up of salary and basis of emoluments paid to him. In this regard he sought a copy of policy guidelines governing fixation of pay and emoluments etc. with regard to the persons appointed on contract basis. He further states that in response to their RTI application, three evasive and different replies were received. He submits that the decision of FAA was not complied with by the PIO.

Decision:

The Commission finds a prima facie case of furnishing wrong information against the then PIO. The present PIO is directed to furnish a revised reply as per the FAO within 2 weeks of receipt of the present order under intimation of compliance to the Commission.

The registry is directed to issue notice under Section 20 for personal appearance of the then PIO who failed to comply with FAO dated 31.07.2017. Show cause shall be served through the present PIO as well as FAA who shall furnish proof of service to the Commission by 02.07.2018. In the event of no service/ wrong service by the present PIO, he shall be held guilty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Reply, if any by the noticee/ the then PIO as to why maximum penalty with recommendation of disciplinary action must not be made against him/her must reach the Commission by 20.07.2018. List for show cause hearing on 02.08.2018.

**************************************************************************************** PENALTY PROCEEDIGS UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE RTI ACT 2005 Relevant facts emerging during hearing (02.08.2018):

Noticees are present. However due to unforeseen circumstances, the hearing adjourned to 13.09.2018.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing (13.09.2018):

The appellant as well as noticees, Ms. Manju Handa, the then PIO with Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh, APIO are present and heard at length. The grievance of appellant is w.r.t to non furnishing of appropriate information. The noticees refute allegation of having obstructed flow of information. It is argued that the appellant as well as his father has filed as many as 19 RTI applications over the same issue involving service related grievance of the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant and his father are making repeated RTI applications with a vexatious attitude since some of the dues which were not found payable to appellant were deducted. Relevant submissions incorporating list of RTI applications with supporting documents is filed by appellant are filed on record. The same are perused.

Upon a query from the Commission, the APIO submits that revised information in compliance with directions issued by Commission has been furnished to the appellant vide reply dated 09.07.2018.

Final Decision: (Show Cause) In light of the facts brought on record by the noticees, the Commission accepts their explanation. The appellant is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance in accordance with the law. Using RTI as proxy litigation is not permissible.

The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read 'malafide' on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:

17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought.

Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.

The noticees while acting as PIO have replied to almost every RTI query of the appellant. The Commission in totality of circumstances do not find any malafide on part of the noticees. No further adjudication is warranted. The penalty proceedings are dropped. The appeal is disposed of.

(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Page 4 of 4