Central Information Commission
Shishir Gupta vs Reserve Bank Of India on 28 February, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2020/664244
Mr. Shishir Gupta ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Reserve Bank of India
HRD Department, RIA Division
Central Office, 21st Floor, SBS Marg
Fort, Mumbai-400001
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 31.01.2019 FA : Not on Record Complaint : 26-02-2020
CPIO : 25-02-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 24-02-2022
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Fort, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information on various points including inter-alia is as under:-
(a) RD, RBI New Delhi (Mr. EE Karthak), any official from HRMD RBI New Delhi and, above all BO1/Review officer(named for the purpose of proper notice to CPIO RBI Mumbai)-
Ms. Anupam Sonal(existing CAPIO RBI New Delhi) or any member of PAR review committee at RBI New Delhi for the performance year 2017-18 be not assigned any position/responsibility in this RTI process except that of respondent staff to information being sought as they are all interested persons in the information being sought. Similarly, RBI has to eschew allocation of any responsibility in this RTI application to all such INTERESTED PERSONs-past or present. It is the responsibility of CPIO RBI Mumbai to find from personal file details of undersigned and then STRICTLY AVOID any position/responsibility to such INTERESTED persons/RBI Staff. In simple words, information sought is about their (INTERESTED PERSONS/RBI STAFF's) official misdeeds Page 1 of 11 done misusing official power and position. Assigning position of CAPIO to any of them is like asking a crime perpetrator to be a Judge "and they can only give out information that is coloured, biased and not true as available, with specific focus on 'saving their own skins' by hiding information wherever convenient/that is whenever it exposes their acts. Assigning any one of them the role of CAPIO is, thus, like wasting the process of RTI application and precious time and resources of this RTI applicant which, on discovery, would attract a claim for recovery of attendant costs and damages. CPIO RBI Mumbai had done this blunder thrice in case of three RTI complaints (RBIND/R/2018/54274, RBIND/R/2018/54177 & RBIND/R/2018/53949) and had entrusted the same to the above named CAPIO and her responses to information sought were so shoddy, evasive that she hid even the information available right under her nose-just to save her own skin-separate complaints are being lodged against CPIO RBI Mumbai and CAPIO, RBI New Delhi for wanton playing with the RTI Act with claims for time,opportunity,information lost in monetary terms . All the above RTI applications dealt with gross acts of official misuse of power and position by CAPIO HERSELF and she was given the job of furnishing information about such misuse. Is it tenable position? Is it a natural justice to appoint a thief as a judge? If CPIO Mumbai does this again, in reference to the current RTI application, despite clear written notice about the same, then this RTI applicant would obviously be eligible to place a justified complaint under the RTI05 Act with, financial claims of up to Rs.75.00 Lakhs enforceable both against the CPIO RBI Mumbai & the CAPIO(pressing of such claims is very much admissible under the process of complaints under RTI Act) and which would also entail their physical presence during enquiry proceedings as prime accused persons. As of now CPIO RBI Mumbai may furnish information under RTI05 Act ,on as to under what circumstances were the above named three RTI applications were allocated to the above named CAPIO even after knowing that she was involved as the prime accused in events (information on which was sought)of gross and open misuse of official power and position and why a complaint against him and the collaborating CAPIO be not pressed under the RTI Act seeking a financial compensation of up to Rs.50.00 lakh be not pressed against them for furnishing rubbish, garbage information(that protected CAPIO more than give information as readily available) thus denying information and delaying legal remedies intentionally in such vicious and premeditated collaboration of handing over RTI applications to an INTERESTED PERSON. Please provide all written document(s)/emails/office notes, per RTI Act admissible as information, clearly stating the reasons for appointing an interested person Ms. Anupam Sonal as CAPIO in the above three RTI applications. Please also provide information on who vetted and approved the garbage responses/waste of this CAPIO (INTERESTED PERSON) in all the above three RTI applications and in what manner-what work-related comparative data was relied upon to vet her response(s). Who queried her for vetting on her response that "it is not information under RTI Act " and exactly how(what exact provisions of sec 2(f) of the RTI Act); who queried her for vetting when she royally furnished information as "information sought is not understood and clear"-why she was not asked why as a CAPIO she did not seek needed clarification from the RTI applicant within 30 days period and on exactly what portions of RTI application she has not understood & how. This Page 2 of 11 CAPIO closed all information needed under such vague, rubbish & garbage replies. Can a RTI application be closed like this by giving responses like 'this is not information under RTI Act-without specifying what section and provision of the RTI Act makes it not an information 'or that "Information sought is not understood without even a query to RTI applicant to make it clear on aspects not understood within 30 days''. This intentional NEGLIGENCE & CALLOUSNESS of the highest order must be viewed seriously by CIC (and by RBI which appoints RTI Act functionaries from within its ranks) as and when the matter is referred to them in any manner. In this expeditious & shoddy manner this CAPIO can dispose of 50 RTI applications in one hour-and RTI applicants would never get any of the information sought even after waiting months and be hurtled into few months more in first appeal, second appeal and complaints 'procedures. What prevents her from writing that she has not understood the information sought, for all the information sought, and CLOSE the RTI application(s) to the GRAVE harm of the RTI applicant. Remember, she is interested person and information sought is about her (a public servant's) misdeeds, -official/public acts done for a public institution. Such CAPIO may be blacklisted by CIC (& by RBI) forever from RTI process and suitable staff action initiated against her for negligent handling of RTI responsibilities assigned her. Summarily information sought from this CAPIO was this: An RBI official (this RTI Applicant) who has done maximum & best work in the department how can you write about him, in public view at large, that he is not fit to be in the department and unjustifiably contest and reduce DRASTICALLY (with no reference to peer compared work performance data available) top marks given to him by his direct reporting officer?" Here is a listing of information that was posed to cross verify her responses from various angles. She was asked to furnish work data on maximum work with peer data(was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act);she was asked to furnish the written down instructions on quality of work in BO(or even basic definitions of work as in a job card or job definition so that one could understand what she was expecting in terms of quantum and quality of work performance(was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act); she was asked to furnish information on her role in overall work value chain in BO's office (was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act); she was to explain role of a reporting officer in her department(was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act);she was asked to clarify if she repeated the role of reporting officer at the year-end by looking at all retail files(thousands of them) in a couple of days to come to conclusion that reporting officer had been liberal in awarding performance marks to this RTI applicant(was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act); she was asked if yes then why and how did she achieve this huge repetition and was her reporting officer incompetent after all and did she never counsel him for liberality(was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act);she was asked where did she have the definition of the word 'liberal'' defined anywhere for her use in relation to the reporting officer and if she had definitions of other words like moderate or average( on a calibration ruler, with well-defined ranges of performance marks associated with each such label in the PMS) too somewhere in PMS or anywhere(was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act); she was asked had she seen other departmental performers(officers) versus reporting officer with the same non-
Page 3 of 11existent/imaginary/self coined terminology of liberal, moderate and average marking by the RO(reporting officer); she was pointedly asked what human resources deployment strategy was she deploying and under what instructions and/or caused by what exact events/circumstances that she began withdrawing work and finally made it ZERO by July end 2018; several work related technical questions were raised point blank to her in another RTI application; she was asked had she seen the professional qualifications and leave record of this RTI applicant and had she compared it all with peers to embolden her to put it in writing a defamatory adverse comment like 'he(this RTI applicant) is not fit to be posted to the OBO((was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act); she was also asked if with this professional/work profile she found this RTI applicant as not fit for posting to OBO then who among peers she found fit and why; she was asked what is email receipt, usage and handling policy as written for OBO work and RTI what it stated about including print outs of emails in files(was it not available was it not information as per RTI Act);she was asked how many cases of work she disagreed with, to add value over what was majorly done by this RTI applicant and vetted by reporting officer(RO)-it was NIL as this BO-1 mutely had agreed to 100% of work done and added not an iota of value ever, was this information not available was it not information as per RTI Act); she was asked what numbers of counselling sessions (counselling as defined within RBI instructions) had she undertaken of this RTI applicant in the PY 2017- 18- as she had alleged in her adverse comment that on work related issues she and reporting officer had to counsel this RTI applicant on many occasions- this liar of a CAPIO was asked if she had followed laid down procedure for such counselling sessions and she was asked to produce evidence of such sessions date wise and issue wise -it was also pointed out to her that in 10 months of work performance year(August 2017 to June 2018) this RTI applicant's interacted with her on one-to-one basis just for barely 45 minutes or even less. Majority one-to-one exposure lasted few seconds and largest may be 15 seconds wherein this RTI applicant summarily advised her on work file and she agreed to it fully. Thus, BO was asked where are the evidences on those counselling sessions by her or reporting officer (how did she come to know of counselling sessions from reporting officer and did she also participate in them, then where are the official evidence of them all or she was plainly misrepresenting the Reporting Officer(RO)and defrauding undersigned and RO taking advantage of the fact that the RO retired long back on June 30,2018). She was asked what comparative work-data she relied upon to support her defamatory comment and now evidence of her malice, work denial for well over 5 months nearly SIX MONTHS(was it not available, was it not information as per RTI Act); This utterly callous, negligent, intimidating, harassing and vicious official of RBI drew a pathetic BLANK and in a crocodile akin manner hid her vicious activities under responses like 'not information under RTI Act', 'information not available' or 'information sought not understood'. This CAPIO had no work-related faults to support her GROSS REDUCTION OF PERFORMANCE MARKS, FOLLOWED BY A DEFAMATORY ADVERSE COMMENT & then followed by a WORK DENIAL period that is now going over SIX MONTHS. This is what happens when interested persons are made CAPIO and are also allowed FREE ADMINISTRATIVE RUN in RBI Offices. That is why the PRESENT RTI APPLICATION IS UNIQUE and includes these SERIOUS concerns. Strictest possible actions Page 4 of 11 should be taken against the CPIO, RBI Mumbai and this grossly negligent and vicious CAPIO who operated, obviously, under premeditated official combination(s)/collaborations. See the pathetic, incomplete and deficient information that she has furnished-available at RTI website and in RBI records, therefore, entire RTI05 applications((RBIND/R/2018/54274, RBIND/R/2018/54177 & RBIND/R/2018/53949) may be revisited within the ambit of this/PRESENT RTI application, by independent CPIO and information furnished as requested or this RTI applicant may be allowed to claim a compensation of Rs.50.00 lakh, as above in a suitable complaint(s) against the CPIO RBI Mumbai and the above named CAPIO for intentionally ambushing the information sought. The kernel of information sought is already produced above with clear indication as to how all such information lay under the nose of CAPIO and yet she denied all such information under above mentioned pleas. Undersigned has a RIGHT of natural justice to seek and get above information in this paragraph as collected by an UNINTERESTED and IMPARTIAL official of RBI. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON ABOVE. CPIO, RBI should also provide information as to how entrusting an RTI application to an INTERESTED person helps an RTI applicant? RBI, as a respondent must respond with clear written instruction in this respect or else it would be presumed that RBI has no objection to filing of a complaint with above indicated compensation.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 25-02-2019 had denied the information as sought by the appellant with reason that RTI request is laborious and running into many pages, without raising any specific query. You may therefore focus on the information required to be furnished by RBI under the Right to Information Act, 2005. No First Appeal is placed on record. No FAO order is placed on records. The complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Abhijeet kaushal, CPIO along with Ms. Anita attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his above RTI application. He has contended that information sought is available with the respondent, therefore they are wilfully obstructed the requested information to the complainant.
Page 5 of 116. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 25.02.2019 they have informed the appellant that "Your request is laborious and running into many pages, without raising any specific query. You may therefore focus on the information required to be furnished by RBI under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and frame the question precisely so that the CPIO may pay attention to the query".
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the queries of the complainant are in the nature of seeking clarifications/explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO and he has expected that the CPIO firstly should analyze/ examine the documents and then provide information to the complainant. That the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided w.r.t the information sought in his RTI application. That in these points, the complainant is seeking information on various issues which requires the CPIO to interpret the relevant documents on record and provide the requested information as desired by the complainant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the applicant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
Page 6 of 1135 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Page 7 of 11Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
9. The Commission further observed that the respondent has informed that the information sought by the appellant is voluminous in nature and is not readily available with the CPIO in the manner as sought by the appellant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant is wide in nature and the CPIO is not expected to collate or compile the information in the manner as sought by the appellant.
10. Moreover, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
Page 8 of 11"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under 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 counter-productive 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 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 public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
11. This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12- 12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Page 9 of 11 Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
12. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the respondent has already provided adequate reply to the above RTI Application well within stipulated time-frame. That since it's a complaint, the adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated. If the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent, he could have approached the Commission by filing Second Appeal. Prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the complainant, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
13. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
14. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 24-02-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 10 of 11
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Reserve Bank of India
HRD Department, RIA Division
Central Office, 21st Floor, SBS Marg
Fort, Mumbai-400001
2. Mr. Shishir Gupta
Page 11 of 11