Central Information Commission
Mrr K Mahajan vs Cbdt on 7 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/000028+000030+000036/BS/10522
07 June 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R K Mahajan,
16, Gopal Park,
Charbatti Chowk,
Kapurthala
Respondent : CPIO / ACIT(HQ) - II,
Income Tax Department,
O/o the CIT - II,
Jalandhar
CPIO / ADIT (Vig),
Income Tax Department
O/o the DGIT(V),
Dayal Singh Public Library Building,
1, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi - 110002
Mr. Ved Paul Singh
DCIT (TDS)
Income Tax Department
Old Red Cross Building,
Udham Singh Nagar,
Near Hero Heart DMC,
Ludhiana.
RTI application filed on : 25/11/2013, 16/01/2014 & 14/02/2014
PIO replied on : 26/12/2013
First appeal filed on : 03/01/2014, 28/02/2014 & 11/04/2014
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal dated : 14/07/2014
Information sought:
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/000028 The appellant has sought the information in regard to disciplinary proceedings in the case of R K Mahajan, ITO (retired) i. After 05/07/2013, when your goodself supplied the point of disagreement, whether any communication/instructions have been received by you from the office of DGIT(V) New Delhi, asking to send the disciplinary proceeding record alongwith written submissions submitted by me together with your own comments to his office for taking necessary action at his end?Page 1 of 6
ii. If so, intimate the dispatch no. and date of the aforesaid letter received from the DGIT (V) New Delhi.
iii. Intimate the date and receipt no. when the aforesaid letter was diarized in your office. iv. Intimate the current status of the file and action taken in the matter.
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/000030 The appellant has sought the information in regard to disciplinary proceedings in the case of RK Mahajan, ITO (retired) hanging fire since the date of initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on 06/09/2005 i. Whether applicant's submissions as made in para 3 of his RTI application dated 11/11/2013 have been accepted for dropping the disciplinary proceedings. ii. Whether the report, in question since been prepared and submitted to the DGIT (V) New Delhi, as stated in your letter referred to as above? If so, intimate the dispatch no. and date when the same was sent to the DGIT (V) New Delhi alongwith a copy of the report.
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/000036 The appellant has sought the following information in regard to 'Complaint file of RK Mahajan, containing pages 1 to 93' A. Inspection of the original documents alongwith file noting and order-sheet, if the same are available, may be given.
B. Whether any enquiry has been got conducted from Sh. SK Anand, in regard to loss/theft/misplacement or unauthorizely removal of the aforesaid original documents alongwith file noting, order sheet from his office?
C. Whether any responsibility has been fixed of the erring officer/official for the loss of the above records? If so, action taken against him may be intimated. D. Whether complaint has been filed with the appropriate Police authority at Jalandhar, for the loss of the above records against the above erring officer/official? If so, copy of the FIR may be supplied to the applicant as has been held by the Hon'ble CIC in its various decisions.
E. The circumstances under which certified copies have been supplied from the photo-copies as original documents are not available in the 'Complaint File'.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 21/04/2016:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. R K Mahajan through VC Respondent: Mr. Rohit Anand CPIO Delhi & Mr. Ashok Malhotra CPIO Jalandhar through VC The appellant stated that issue in all the appeals is common viz. that he received response only after he filed a second appeal with the CIC. He further submitted that even his 1st appeal either remained undecided or was decided only after he filed his 2nd appeal. He pleaded that penal proceedings should be initiated against the then CPIO and compensation should be paid to him as the FAA did not decide his appeals within the prescribed period. The CPIO stated that he joined the present assignment only on 24/07/2014 and the then CPIO Mr. Ved Paul Singh (presently posted as DCIT TDS Ludhiana) can explain the reasons for the delay in replying to the RTI applications.Page 2 of 6
Decision notice dated 21/04/2016:
By not furnishing the information timely the then CPIO Mr. Ved Paul Singh has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. However, before imposing any such penalty, we would like to give an opportunity to Mr. Ved Paul Singh to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for not providing timely information to the appellant. Accordingly, we direct Mr. Ved Paul Singh, who had received the RTI applications to submit his written explanation as above on or before 20/05/2016. Mr. Singh should forward his explanation by post and also on email [email protected]. It should be carefully noted that in case Mr. Singh fails to provide any satisfactory explanation the Commission will proceed to impose penalty on him.
Mr. Ved Paul Singh is directed to appear before the Commission through videoconferencing on 07/06/2016 at 03.00 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. R K Mahajan Respondent: Shri Ved Paul Singh the then CPIO & Mr. Ashok Malhotra CPIO Jalandhar through VC The then CPIO Mr. Ved Paul Singh in his written submission dated 17/05/2016 has submitted that the RTI application dated 25/11/2013 was duly replied vide letter dated 26/12/2013. As regards the other applications dated 16.01.2014 and 14.02.2014, the information was omitted to be supplied timely to the appellant on account of following reasons beyond his control;-
i. Some of the information sought by the applicant vide application dated 14.02.2014 was not available in the office and was lying in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar. In fact the applicant had sought identical information earlier also which were ultimately learnt to be lying in the Income Tax Office, Amritsar. The undersigned made all out efforts to get the relevant record from Income Tax Office, Amritsar. Thereafter, the applicant Sh R.K. Mahajan was allowed inspection of the complaint file containing page 1 to 93. He was also supplied the certified copies of some documents sought by him. This shows that there was no intention on my part to withhold the information sought by the applicant. A copy of the order-sheet dated 09.10.2013 and 12.11.2013 is enclosed for your kind perusal.
ii. During the period June, 2013 to 24.07.2014 in addition to my duties as ACIT(Hq.) I was holding additional charge of Circle-4, Jalandhar, which carried heavy workload of time barring scrutiny assessments which were to be completed before 31.03.2014. During the period December, 2013 to March, 2014 I had to complete 52 time barring scrutiny assessments.
iii. It is further submitted that besides RTI matters my duty list includes many important subjects involving time limitation. As ACIT(Hq.) I had to attend to the arduous nature of work such as disciplinary proceedings and service matters including CAT and High Court cases of the Govt. Officers in addition to the work relating to the RTI. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the duty list for your kind perusal. iv. During my tenure as ACIT(Hq.) for the period July, 2012 to July, 2014, the applicant Sh.
R.K. Mahajan filed more than hundred RTI applications and these were duly responded by the undersigned. This fact clearly establishes that there was no deliberate act of omission or commission to withhold the information sought by the applicant.
Page 3 of 6He has stated that in the facts and circumstances narrated above there was no malafide on his part to withhold the information required by the applicant and there was an un-intentional omission to supply the information timely sought by the applicant. It is therefore earnestly requested that considering the totality of the circumstances the Hon'ble Commission may kindly take lenient view for any act of omission and commission on his part and drop the penalty proceedings.
The appellant stated that the explanation provided by the then CPIO does not carry merit as he was given charge of Circle 4 much after the RTI applications had been filed. He further alleged that the respondent is a habitual defaulter in so many other cases filed by him. He submitted that the Commission has held that lack of malafide is not a plea that will mitigate the mischief of Section 20 [decision dated 18/5/2007 Bhika Ram vs. MCD]. Further, the law makes no allowance for apologies offered or regrets expressed in terms of imposition of penalty. The appellant added that in an earlier case where the FAA had not decided the first appeal the Commission had ordered initiation of disciplinary action and had also awarded compensation of Rs. 20000/- [decision dated 24/5/2007 Mahesh Kandwal vs. LIC].
The then CPIO Shri Singh contested the appellant's submissions stating that he was holding charge of ACIT HQ w.e.f. July, 2012 and additional charge of Circle 4 was given to him in June 2013 much before the RTI applications were filed. He reiterated that in addition to his duties as CPIO he was heavily overloaded with work involving time limitations.
Decision notice:
The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in its decision dated 4/3/2010 [Civil Writ Petition no. 6504 of 2009 - State of Punjab vs. SIC] while setting aside the penalty order passed by the SIC has observed as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is a delay and it is explained, the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. If there had been a delay of a year and if there was a Superintendent, who was prodding the Public Information Officer to act, that itself should be seen a circumstance where the government authorities seemed reasonably aware of the compulsions of time and the imperatives of providing information without any delay. The 2nd respondent has got what he has wanted and if there was a delay, the delay was for reasons explained above which I accept as justified."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 01/06/2012, in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. W.P.(C) 11271/2009, while quashing the showcause notice issued by the Commission under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act has held as under.
"61. ...................... The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. ............"Page 4 of 6
The then CPIO Shri Ved Paul Singh has explained that the RTI application dated 25/11/2013 was duly replied on 26/12/2013 while the other two applications dated 16/01/2014 and 14/02/2014 were omitted to be replied as some information relating to RTI application dated 14/02/2014 was held by the office of the CIT Amritsar and that in addition to his duty as CPIO he was holding additional charge of Circle 4 carrying heavy workload and time barring cases which had to be disposed of by 31 March 2014. He has further submitted that he was also engaged in many duties involving time limitation and had allowed Shri Mahajan to inspect the complaint file on 09/10/2013 and 12/11/2013. He has pointed out that during his tenure as CPIO from July 2012 to July 2014 Shri Mahajan filed more than 100 RTI application and these were duly replied which shows there was no deliberate act or omission on his part to withhold information from the applicant.
From the foregoing it is clear that Shri Ved Paul Singh in addition to his duties as CPIO had heavy workload involving time limitation. Further, during his tenure of two years he has attended over 100 RTI applications filed by the appellant besides allowing him to inspect the complaint file. The appellant has accepted that he has received the information after appeals were filed with the CIC. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons for delay as explained by Shri Ved Paul Singh, it cannot be said that he has consciously and deliberately acted in a manner so as to block the provision of the information. Thus, this case does not meet the requirement of Section 20(1) regarding the CPIO not furnishing information within the stipulated time "without any reasonable cause". Therefore, imposition of penalty is not warranted in this case.
As regards the appellant's plea for compensation on the ground that the FAA has not decided his appeals, compensation payable under Section 19 (8)(b) is "for any loss or other detriment suffered", on account of non-provision of information under the RTI Act. The appellant has not specified the loss or detriment suffered by him and the reasons thereof, on account of delay in provision of information. In the absence of any such reasons it is not possible to grant compensation. The appellant has pleaded for action against the FAA, though a serious view can be taken for non-disposal of appeals, we note that there is no provision in the RTI Act for any action against the FAA.
Before parting with this matter, we would like to observe that the RTI Act has been enacted by the Parliament to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every Public Authority and to contain corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the people. While Public Authorities are required to respond to RTI applications in the true letter and spirit of the Act, information seekers are expected to exercise the right with a sense of responsibility so as to avoid undue strain on the resources of the Public Authorities. In this context it will be apt to quote the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, [2011] 8 SCC 947 :-
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of Page 5 of 6 honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The matters are closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 6 of 6