Central Information Commission
Sital Chandra Adhikari vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 7 August, 2020
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/MOHFW/C/2018/100673-BJ
Mr. Sital Chandra Adhikari
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Office of the Director
Central Government Health Scheme
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Room No 545, "A" Wing, Maulana Azad Road
New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.03.2019
Date of Decision : 06.03.2019
Date of filing of RTI application 18.09.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of filing the First appeal 31.10.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 03.01.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding copy of "office note" on his letters dated 13th June, 2017 and 2nd August, 2017 addressed to the Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi etc. Dissatisfied due to non- receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 7
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Sital Chandra Adhikari through VC;
Respondent: Dr. Suman Nanda, CMO (HAG) and Ms. Shashi Rawat, SO;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no reply had been received by him, till date. In its reply, the Respondent present during the hearing submitted that the letter referred to by the Complainant in his RTI application was misplaced and their Section was trying to retrieve the same. The Commission while drawing the attention of the Respondent towards Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 wherein the time limits are prescribed for furnishing the reply, queried as to why no response was given as per the provisions of the Act, to which the Respondent feigned her ignorance. The Respondent however admitted that due to lapse on their part, a reply was not furnished to the Complainant, within the stipulated time. The Commission also noted that after intervention of the Commission only, a formal reply was sent to the Complainant on 22.01.2019, which is a grave violation of the statutory Act passed by the Government of India as also defeating the objectives of the Preamble of the Act which aims to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
The Commission drew its reference to the objective of promulgation of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to provide for citizens to secure, access to information under the control of public authorities and to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The preamble of the Act reads as follows:
"An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it."Page 2 of 7
Much before the legislative enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, our Judiciary, in a progressive interpretation of the Constitutional provisions, had paved the way towards delineating the Right to Information. In 1975, in State of UP vs. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333), Justice Mathew had ruled:
"In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 observed as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy"
The High Court of Delhi in General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 regarding the disclosure of information for public interest, held:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance."
The Commission also observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognized by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P. Agrawal v. Union of India- 2013(287) ELT25(Del.) held as under:
Page 3 of 77."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.
8..............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve / forward what his subordinates have done."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.Page 4 of 7
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that no reply had been provided by the Respondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, directs Dr. Suman Nanda, CMO (HAG)/CPIO to show cause why penal action under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated for imposition of penalty @ of Rs. 250/- per day subject to a maximum amount of Rs. 25,000/- which should reach the Commission within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Deputy Director General, CGHS is also directed to ensure the compliance of the aforementioned order and forward the show cause explanation from the concerned CPIO within the period stipulated above.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaint stands disposed with the above direction.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 06.03.2019 Copy to:
1. The Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Room No. 446-A, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Rd, New Delhi, Delhi 110011
2. Dr. Manoj Jain, Deputy Director General, Central Government Health Scheme Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Room No. 307 D, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi - 110011 Page 5 of 7 ADJUNCT ORDER:
Date of Hearing: 06.08.2020 Note: The Dy Registrar, CIC vide notice dated 20.07.2020 fixed 06.08.2020 as the next date of show cause hearing in the matter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Dr. Suman Nanda, CMO (HAG) and Ms. Shashi Rawat, SO;
The Appellant remained absent despite prior intimation. Mr. Nirjhar, Network Engineer, Kolkata confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 03.08.2020 wherein he stated that due to health reasons he would be unable to attend the hearing and that the decision of the Commission in the two cases would be honored by him. In its reply, the Respondent while tendering their unconditional apology for the perceptible delay in replying to the RTI application stated that they had provided the copy of their letter dated 22.01.2018 to the Appellant which addressed the queries raised by him in his RTI application. Explaining that the matter essentially pertained to re-imbursement of medical re-imbursement claim of the Appellant, the Respondent submitted that since, no specific guidelines for submission of Medical Reimbursement claim papers in duplicate were issued by the Ministry, the Kolkata office was told not to insist for a duplicate copy of the claims. The Kolkata office, promptly settled the medical claims of the Appellant. A separate Office Order had also been issued for not insisting for a duplicate copy of the claims. On being queried if the copy of the written submission/ show cause reply togetherwith the necessary enclosures was provided to the Appellant or not, the Respondent replied in the affirmative.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from Dr Suman Nanda, Sr CMO (HAG), Nodal Officer for RTI, o/o the Addl. DDG (HQ), CGHS and Deemed CPIO dated 20.03.2019 wherein it was inter alia stated that the letter of the Appellant addressed to the Director, CGHS was examined and discussed over telephone with the Addl. Director, CGHS, Kolkata and informed him that it was not compulsory for seeking a second copy of medical claim from CGHS beneficiaries. Accordingly, the medical claim of the Appellant was settled by CGHS, Kolkata. No specific written instructions had been conveyed to Addl Director in respect of the letters submitted by the Appellant in view of the fact that the Ministry had not issued any specific guideline for submission of medical re-imbursement claim papers in duplicate. Therefore a copy of the office note in this regard was not provided as no such document was created. As the nodal officer for RTI applications in the O/o the Addl. DDG (HQ), CGHS he attended the hearing before the Commission. As there was another RTI application with the Addl. Director, CGHS Kolkata on the same subject was a mix up and RTI with 1st and 2nd Appeals was forwarded to the AD Kolkata vide letter dated 22.01.2018 with a copy to the Commission. The Respondent assured to take utmost care and dedication while dealing with RTI matters and requested the Commission to pardon him in this matter.Page 6 of 7
The Commission was also in receipt of another written submission from the Respondent dated 28.07.2020 wherein it was stated that immediately after the receipt of the orders from the Commission, the letter of the Complainant was examined and discussed with the Addl Director, CGHS, Kolkata. Since, no specific guidelines for submission of Medical Reimbursement claim papers in duplicate were issued by the Ministry, Kolkata office was told not to insist for a duplicate copy of the claims. The Kolkata office, promptly settled the medical claims of the Appellant. A separate Office Order had also been issued for not insisting for a duplicate copy of the claims. Furthermore, as guided by the Commission, the MH&FW had taken all the necessary steps to sensitize the staff working in the office to process the RTI applications within the stipulated time with diligence and accord due importance. As per the orders an explanation from the Nodal officer, RTI in response to the show cause notice dated 20.03.2019 and letter from the Addl. Dy Director General (HQ) CGHS dated 20.03.2019 were forwarded to the Commission.
Furthermore, a letter dated 22.01.2018 was issued to the Addl Director, CGHS, Kolkata office by the Addl. DDG and CPIO, HQ Delhi at that time to take necessary action. The letter was drafted immediately after receiving diarized receipt of complaint but could not be produced during the last hearing on 05.03.2019. The same was however sent to the Commission on 20.03.2019. Thus, it was stated there was no intention to disrespect the directions of the Commission and that utmost care would be taken to avoid any such incidence. Hence, it was prayed to take a sympathetic view in the matter and condone the unintended delay.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the explanation offered by the Respondent in its reply to the show cause notice, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The show cause proceedings stand dropped.
The Respondent is however, cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that the RTI applications are meticulously dealt with utmost diligence as per provisions of the Act.
Bimal Julka(िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 07.08.2020
Page 7 of 7