Central Information Commission
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey vs Kendriya Vidyalaya, Buxar on 25 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001551/6862Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001551
Complainant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey
Shri Krishan Nagar Colony,
Buxar, Bihar - 802101.
Respondent : Mr. K. P. Patade
PIO & Principal
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Buxar
Campus of M P High School,
Near Ramrekha Ghat, Dist. - Buxar,
Bihar.
RTI application filed on : 09/09/2009
PIO replied : Not replied
First appeal filed on : Not appealed
Complaint filed on : 05/11/2009
Complaint notice sent on : 09/11/2009
Hearing notice sent on : 13/01/2010
Hearing held on : 16/02/2010
Information Sought:
a) Certified copy of the selection process and educational qualification of candidates of
spoken English who were selected on contract basis in 2009.
b) Certified copy of the educational qualification of candidates who came for the interview
of English (Spoken) in year 2009-10.
c) Name and base on which members are nominated for the Committee constituted for
interview for English (Spoken).
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO in its reply sought some clarification from the Complainant on each query of the RTI
Application.
Ground of the First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time under RTI Act.
Ground of the Complaint:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time under RTI Act.
Submission received from the PIO:
(After Complaint notice sent on 09/11/2009)
The PIO/Principal, Mr. K. P. Patade vide his letter dated 25/11/2009 informed the Commission
that the application of Complainant received in his 10/09/2009 and there was a remark found on
his application made by post master Buxar and address of sender on envelope was post master
Page 1 of 3
Buxar instead of Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey. The PIO in its reply had sought some clarification
on every query of the RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. D. B. Singh, PRT on behalf of Mr. K. P. Patade PIO & Principal;
The PIO Mr. K.P.Patade, Principal has been contending that he does not understand the
term 'spoken English'. The Respondent Mr. D.B. Singh was asked by the Commission whether
Spoken English was being taught in the School. He states that it is taught thought contractual
employees upto February 28. Thus it is apparent that Mr. D. B. Singh who is a Primary Teacher
in the School understands the term spoken English and is able to understand what information
the Complainant is seeking. He has also given to the Commission another letter of Mr. K. P.
Patade dated 25/11/2009 in which he again appears to be claiming that he is incapable of
understanding what the term Spoken English means.
Decision dated 16/02/2010:
The Complaint was allowed. The PIO was directed to give the complete information to the
Appellant before 28 February 2010. The issue before the Commission was of not supplying
the complete, required information by the PIO Mr. K. P. Patade within 30 days as required
by the law. A showcause notice was being issued to him, and he was directed to present himself
before the Commission at the above address on 25 March 2010 at 3.30pm alongwith his written
submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under
Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
Facts emerging during show cause hearing on 25/03/2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. K.P. Patade, Principal & PIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Buxar, Bihar;
Mr. K.P. Patade has stated that initially the RTI application dated 09/09/2009 was received by him bearing a remark of the Post master, regarding forwarding the application, and the sender of the application was the post master instead of the Appellant. Hence he had sent a letter on 11/09/2009 to the Appellant stating that the RTI application dated 09/09/2009 was not appropriate, hence required information might not be provided. He has further stated that in the RTI application the Appellant has mentioned the term 'Spoken English' instead of 'spoken English teacher', hence after the Commission's notice dated 09/11/2009 he had requested the Appellant on 25/11/2009 to re-send the RTI application and to use the appropriate terms. Mr. K.P. Patade has stated that he must need the appropriate terms to satisfy his higher authority. However he has provided the complete information to the Appellant on 23/02/2010 after the order of the Commission.
The PIO states that he has given information now to the Appellant but still insists that he did not provide information earlier since the appellant has used a term candidates for spoken English instead of the term candidates of spoken English Teacher. The Appellant's RTI application which was written in Hindi was fairly clear and even the primary teacher of the school who was representing the PIO,- who is the Principal of the school,- was able to understand what the appellant wanted. The PIO's claim that he could not understand that the RTI application was sent by the Appellant since it was mooted through the Post Office is also very difficult to believe. The RTI Application has been sent by speed post by the Appellant with Rs.10/- IPO attached with it. The PIO has submitted a written submission in which he states that "In connection with the subject sited above I have to say with due regards that PIO is responsible to satisfy the Page 2 of 3 complaint question as well as his authority keeping in mind he has to give departmental information on appropriate question". It is not clear what the PIO is tying to say but if he means that higher authorities are persuading him not to reply to RTI queries he will have to take the responsibility for his actions. All PIOs have to take responsibility for their actions unless they have sought the assistance of another officer under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The Commission asked the PIO if he wanted to offer any other explanation for this completely unnecessary delay in providing the information. He stated that he wishes to offer no further explanation. The RTI request had been made on 09/09/2009 and the information should have been provided to the Appellant before 09/10/2009. Instead of this the PIO has provided the information on 23/02/2010 as per his letter to the Commission. The Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Mr. K.P. Patade, Principal & PIO. The PIO has offered no reasonable cause for this delay. Since the delay has been for over 100 days the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of Rs.25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
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. K.P. Patade, Principal & PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. K.P. Patade for Rs. 25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25000/- from the salary of Mr. K.P. Patade, Principal & PIO 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 Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. K.P. Patade and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from April 2010. The total amount of Rs.25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of August, 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 25 March 2010 (For any further correspondence in this matter, please quote the file number mentioned above.) (GJ) 1- Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Sigh 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 Page 3 of 3