Central Information Commission
Mrp D Raphael vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 30 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/RM/C/2014/000353SA
P D Rapheal, Thrissur v. PIO, Central Board of Secondary Education, New
Delhi.
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 02.11.2012 FAA: 20.12.2012
SA: 22.04.2014 Hearing: 09.03.2016 Decision: 30032016
Result:
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is present. Mr. J. B. Thapa, S.O. (Link Officer to PIO) and Mr. Rajeev Pandey,
Analyst represent Public authority.
FACTS:
2. The appellant filed the RTI application seeking information whether his 5 complaints filed against the school has been forwarded to the legal cell and if given, he needs the file number allotted on these complaints. He wanted to know if any counter affidavit was filed in Writ Petition filed by him. The CPIO said that he can get the information upon payment of requisite fees. The appellant filed appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA). FAA said that information to all his 30 RTI have been provided and upheld the CPIO. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a second appeal before this Commission under section 19(3) of the RTI Act. Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. The officers representing Public authority stated that the appellant was a formal teacher who was terminated following disciplinary proceedings conducted against him for wilfully violating rules prescribed in school manual and CBSE byelaws. He was removed on the grounds of unauthorised leave, dereliction of duties as teacher at school and taking private tuitions, using immoderate language and demeaning the Principal in front of colleagues , to name a few. They said that the appellant is motivated to harass the school, the students and the parents and that a negative and destructive element likes this appellant is nuisance to the school and public institution. They said that he filed around 30 RTI applications against one school. The Commission observed that the appellant was using intemperate language in the hearing as well.
4. The Commission considers this case as the repetitive misuse of RTI Act by this disgruntled applicant, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act. The Commission finds him to be an unreasonable petitioner. The RTI Act is but for the bonafide people in general and only in public interest, and never for the private revenge of the dissatisfied applicants who have been found guilty of disciplinary charges. RTI is not a rendezvous of disgruntled elements.
5. The Commission in its earlier order No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA delivered on 2562014 in the case of R.C .Jain Vs. DTC, with respect to RTI applications which are repetitive and harassing in nature had observed as follows:
" Repetitive use of RTI an ABUSE :
5. The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act, by a disgruntled employee.
6. The respondent officers made fervent appeals to the Commission that they were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles; and about individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance. The Commission found that the applicant was one of the four disgruntled employees against whom action was taken or their claims were denied.
RTI: Not a rendezvous of disgruntled elements :
7. .... The Commission also noted an atmosphere of fear and worry was spread in the offices and the officers are hesitating to take action against erring staff members for fear of facing flood of questions under RTI. ..... "
6. The Commission while directing the appellant to desist from filing frivolous and vexatious RTI application:
a) records admonition of the applicant for abusing his right to information and clogging public office,
b) records a stern warning that any such attempt to harass the Public authority with same or similar RTI application would be viewed as serious obstruction to activity of public authority and appropriate action as per law and judicial interpretation shall be taken against him
c) recommends the public authority not to entertain the same applicant anymore if he is abusing his right to information.
7. In view of the above, the Commission accordingly, rejects all second appeals filed by this appellant against CBSE and the school.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (U. C. Joshi) Deputy Secretary Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha KendraII, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi110092.
2. Shri P. D Rapheal, Pudussery House, Calvary Corner, Poothole Post, Dist. Thrussur, Kerela680004.