Central Information Commission
Mr.Vinod Kumar Garg vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 23 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000114/13823Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000114
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Garg
R-6/5 C Raj Nagar,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : Mr. T.D. Chetwani,
Deemed PIO & Sr. Asst.
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Personnel Department,
Palika Kendra,
New Delhi - 110001
RTI application filed on : 29/09/2010
Complaint received on : 02/02/2011
Complaint notice sent on : 05/02/2011
Information sought:-
The Complainantwants the following information:-
1. Please provide a Daily Progress Report from the date of letter/application/complaint up to the date of supplying the information in the following format:
(i)Date
(ii)Receipt
(iii)Name & Designation of official
(iv)Details of action taken by official
(v)Date Out
(vi)Dispatch Reference
(vii) Period
2. Please provide all applicable/specified time lines as to, according to your citizens' charter or rules/regulations, the no. of days it takes for such a work to be processed at each step.
3. If you have a timeline for stage-wise handling of the matter, provide a copy of the same.
4. Please provide the names, designations and current official contact details of those officers who were supposed to take action but. who have not done so, or have not adhered to the time limits.
5. Not adhering to time limits renders one guilty of misconduct under conduct rules. Please advise what action is specified against guilty officials. I will file a separate application to know if you have taken that action and the details thereof.
6. Disobeying any direction of law renders a public servant liable to be punished under section 166 of Indian Penal Code. Please advise if you will file a criminal complaint against guilty officials. If yes, please advice by when. If not, I will be forced to do so.
7. Please inform the present status.
8. Please advice a date by when the matter will he resolved/concluded for my pay and disbursement of Arrears.
Page 1 of 4Ground of the Complaint:
Information provided by the PIO is incomplete.
Reply from PIO:-
It is informed that the applicant's case is under process to fix his pay under 6th CPC. After that it'll be processed for his revised pension as there is no delay on the part of anybody else.
Submissions received from the PIO:
Vide letter dated 28/02/2011 addressed to the Complainant, the PIO (Civil Estt.)/Dy. Director (Civil), NMDC submitted that:-
1. The information sought by the Complainant has been furnished vide letter dated 05/08/2010.
2. Further, regrets the delay in the reply caused by mix up of the files.
3. The Complaint went in appeal to the First ComplainantAuthority, which directed the PIO to fix the pension of the officer within 15 days of the Order. In compliance of the said order the PIO/ Dy.
Director (Civil) stated that the pay has already been fixed according to the 6th CPC and arrears arising from the same have already been remitted into the Complainant's account and the Complainant is not entitled to avail the grant of 3rd ACP according to the 6th CPC guidelines.
Submissions received from the Complainant:
1. Vide letter dated 14/03/2011, the Complainant submitted that the reply provided by the PIO after the lapse of about 120 days, is not as per the RTI application. The information regarding Query No 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. & 8 is not provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 03/08/2011:
The following were present Complainant: Mr. Vinod Kumar Garg;
Respondents: Mr. Sri Krishan, PIO & Deputy Director (Civil Assessment) and Mr. N. C. Gupta, Officiating SO.
"The Respondent admits that no information had been sent to the Complainant when the RTI application was received. He states that the RTI application was given to Mr. T. D. Chetwani, Senior Assistant who was the Deemed PIO. The information has been provided to the Complainant on 26/07/2011 which the Complainant has received. The Complainant states that he has received the complete information. There is no reasonable explanation being offered by the Respondent why the information was not provided within 30 days and his claim is that the Deemed PIO Mr. T. D. Chetwani had mixed up the papers and hence not provided the information."
Decision dated 03/08/2011:
"The complaint is allowed. The information has been provided as admitted by the Complainant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO Mr. T. D. Chetwani within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the Deemed PIO Mr. T. D. Chetwani is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the Deemed PIO Mr. T. D. Chetwani's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on August 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Complainant, the Deemed PIO Mr. T. D. Chetwani is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him."Page 2 of 4
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 23/08/2011:
Respondent: Mr. T.D. Chetwani, Deemed PIO & Sr. Asstt.;
Deemed PIO & Sr. Asstt. Mr. T.D. Chetwani has submitted his written submissions. He has stated that the RTI application dated 29/09/2010 was received in his office on 05/10/2010 by his helper Mr. Manish Kakkar. The information was furnished to the Complainant on 26/07/2011. In his written submissions, it is mentioned that since he is suffering from TVD(Heart Disease), his doctor advised him for light job work. He has also stated that a fire broke-out on 22/05/2010 in the office. It is also mentioned that the RTI application was mixed up with the other papers. The respondent states that since the information has now been provided to the Complainant no penalty should be imposed.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
The RTI application was filed on 29/09/2010 and the information was provided to the complainant only on 26/07/2011. No reasonable cause has been offered for the delay in providing the information by Mr. T.D. Chetwani, Deemed PIO & Sr. Asst. Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Chetwani.
Page 3 of 4Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. T.D. Chetwani, Deemed PIO & Sr. Asst. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. T.D. Chetwani `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council is directed to recover the amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. T.D. Chetwani and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. T.D. Chetwani and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from October 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of February, 2012.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 23 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) CC:
1- The Chairman
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra, Sandad Marg,
New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Mr. Sri Krishan
PIO/Dy. Director (Civil Assessment)
Civil Estt. Unit-II,
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Personnel Department,
Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001
Page 4 of 4