Central Information Commission
Shri Tarkeshwar Ray vs East Central Railway on 13 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Near Post Office
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel: 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000956/3678Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000956
Show Cause Hearing:
Appellant : Shri Tarkeshwar Ray, (inspector incharge),
East Central Railway,
Sonpur Division,
Railway Security Force,
Post: Gadh hara
Hajipur (Bihar)
Respondent : Mr. Y.K.Jaiswal
PIO East Central Railway, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Mughalsarai Back Ground :
The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 21/10/2008 had sought information regarding Office of Railway Security Force, Mugalsarai.
No reply was received from the PIO or FAA in this regard. Second appeal was received by the Hon'ble CIC on 29/04/2009 on which decision was pronounced on 12/06/2009.
The Facts arose in the hearing:
The Respondent had sent his written submission showing that the PIO asked for assistance from Sr. DCM on 11/11/2008 under Section 5(4). The Sr. DSC/MGS wrote a letter Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar on 25/11/2008 to get his consent under Section(11). Sr. DCM/MGS asked Mr. Ray for consent on 27/11/2008. The PIO stated that Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar objected to give the information on 24/04/2009 and Sr.DCM and CPIO/MGS sent a letter to Mr. Ray rejecting the information on 05/05/2009. It was clear that the PIO had failed in his duty completely in implementing the RTI Act. He should have asked for any objection from the third party within 5 days and the third party under Section 11(2) of the RTI Act is expected to give his reply within 10 days. In absence of any reply the PIO should have sent the information to the Appellant or given reasons for rejection. Even when Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar objected to give the information on 24/04/2009 the PIO had given no reasons for denial of information. Under Section 11(1) the PIO is expected to keep the submissions of the third party in view and give a decision. This decision has to be based on the exemptions of the Section 8(1) which was not done. Also it was clear that the PIO sought to absolve himself of his failure to respond to the Appellant by claiming that he waited for Mr. Bhatnagar's objection for about 5 months. No case had been made out for justifying rejection of the information.
Commission's Order:
The appeal was allowed and Respondent was found guilty of not supplying the complete, required information within 30 days as required by the law. The Commission thereby directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the Appellant free of cost before 25/06/2009.
The Brief Facts Leading to Show Cause Hearing:
The PIO was found guilty of not furnishing the complete, required information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days free of cost, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. The Commission was of opinion that PIO's actions attracted the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.
A showcause notice was issued to the Respondent and he was directed to give reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him. The Respondent was also asked to produce the proof of information submitted to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts During the Show Cause Hearing on 13/07/2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. R.P.Pacharwal deemed PIO and Mr. S.R.Laguri Mr. R.P.Pacharwal deemed PIO states that he received the letter from PIO Mr. Y.K.Jaiswal on 25/11/2008 seeking his assistance under Section 5(4) since he held the information. Mr. Mr. R.P.Pacharwal sought the comments of Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar who was the third party on 25/11/2008 under Section 11 of RTI Act. Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar did not reply until April 2009 and therefore Mr. R.P.Pacharwal did not sent any information to the PIO. The Mr. R.P.Pacharwal deemed PIO was asked to give his reasons for this. Mr. R.P.Pacharwal states, "I was very busy with different work including VIP duty and hence could not send the information."
The deemed PIO Mr. R.P.Pacharwal has supplied the information after the order of the Commission on 16/06/2009. Mr. R.P.Pacharwal was transferred from the position on 06 May 2009. Therefore Mr. R.P.Pacharwal was responsible for the delay in providing the information from 25/11/2008 to 06 May 2009. Firstly there was no need to ask Mr. Bhatnagar or his views under Section 11, since this was not third party information. The appellant had sought a copy of the charge sheet issued to Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar and copy of the decision and the complaint on the basis on which the charge sheet was issued. Even if we assume that Mr. Mr. R.P.Pacharwal made an error there is no explanation for not supplying the information within 10 days of 25/11/2008 since Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar had not send any reply. It almost appears that the deemd PIO Mr. R.P.Pacharwal had some reasons not to give the information.
In view of this the Commission finds this as fit case for levying penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at Rs.250/- per day. Since the delay has been over 100 days the maximum penalty of Rs.25000/- is being levied on deemed PIO Mr. R.P.Pacharwal.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on deemed PIO Mr. R.P.Pacharwal. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr.Kunal Rs. 25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Chief Security Commissioner of Railway Protection Force, Hazipur is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25000/- from the salary of on Mr. R.P.Pacharwal, 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. R.P.Pacharwal and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from August 2009. The total amount of Rs.25000 /- will be remitted by December, 2009.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
July 13, 2009
1- Chief Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force
East Central Railway,
Zonal Headquarters,
Hazipur
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066