Central Information Commission
Mrr K Jain vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory ... on 10 April, 2015
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/SA/C/2014/000473
R.K Jain v. PIO, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 04.11.2014 Reply: Time :
FAA: 08.12.2014 FAO: Time :
Complaint: 11.12.2014 Hearing: 06.04.2015 Decision: 10.04.2015
Result: Show cause issued.
Parties Present:
1. Complainant is present. Public authority is represented by Shri R. Subramanium and C K
Roy.
Facts:
2. Complainant through his RTI application had sought for information on following points :
a. Please provide the total number of applications received for the post of Executive Director (Law) for which the last date for filing the application was 11.07.2014.
b. Please provide the list of candidate from whom the applications at Point A above were received.
c. Please provide the name of the candidates who after scrutiny were found ineligible for the post of Executive Director (Law)..etc
3. PIO in his reply dated 01.12.2014 referred to Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in W.P (C) No. 26781 of 2013 and CIC decision in case of Smt Uma Kanti Vs. Navodya Vidhyalaya in response to the Complainants RTI application.
4. Being unsatisfied with the reply of PIO, appellant preferred First Appeal on 08.12.2014.
5. Claiming that the PIO has deliberately, malafidely and persistently not provided the information as per the RTI application, the Complainant has approached the Commission in Complaint Under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. Complainant submitted that after he received information that appointment to Post of Executive Director (Law) DERC has been made in consideration other than legal criteria, then he sought to know the details through RTI application to verify the allegation and to contain the irregularity/Corruption.
7. Complainant referred to the reply of PIO, which stated:
"This has reference to your above mentioned 10 RTIs dated 4.11.2014, wherein you have sought information on 71 questions and requested for 3 inspections. It is observed that these 71 questions have questions on about 365 items.
In this context, the following may please be seen :
1. Please give the Object for seeking the above mentioned in above said reference nos. RTI application dated 4.11.2014 as per the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 17.9.2014 in W.P No. 26781 of 2013 and M.P No. 1 of 2013 in the matter of PIO, Registrar (Administration), Hon'ble High Court, Madras Vs CIC. In which a division bench said RTI applicants must disclose the object for which the information is sought and also satisfy that such a object has a legal backing, a decision which have for reaching implications on getting information under the RTI Act. In this regard Para 21,28,29 & 30 of the High Court Order dated 17.09.2014 in W.P No. 26781 of 2012 and M.P No. 1 of 2013 in the matter of PIO, Registrar (Administration) High Court, Madras Vs CIC may be seen.
2. Hon'ble CIC decision in the case of Smt. Uma Kanti & Shri Ramesh Chandra Vs Navodya Vidhyalaya (No. CIC/OK/C/2007/00362 & 367 dated 05.01.2008). The appellant sought information/documents on 375 items regarding various issues pertaining to the department. No information was furnished by the CPIO."
8. The Commission noted that the PIO has furnished this letter in at least 10 cases in the same manner without changing even a single letter. It is copy and paste response without application of mind.
9. Complainant submitted that PIO did not decide the matter at all. He neither allowed the request of the complainant nor furnished the information, which was a deliberate act of refusal on his part to deny/delay the furnishing of information. The Complainant also stated that by the date of the PIO replied, the Madras High Court reviewed and removed the paragraphs of the judgment dated 23.09.2014. As on the date of reply, because of modified order of madras High Court, a PIO cannot refuse information on the ground that complainant did not reveal the reasons for his RTI application. Complainant further submitted that the decision of the CIC cited by the PIO does not apply to this case, as complainant was not employee of DERC nor he had transaction/connection with the person about whom he was seeking the information.
10. The complainant showed how Mr Akash Deep was irregular by using the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 09.12.2014 in W.P (C) No. 8697/2014 saying :
"2. The petitioner was not eligible for deputation on the post of executive director (Law) as he had just finished the permissible tenure of seven years at a stretch foe deputation outside the Department of Posts and has not completed the mandatory cooling off period of three years in the department,....the respondent no. 2/DERC had considered the matter and given its approval to withdraw and cancel the offer to the post of Executive Director (Law), made to the petitioner...."
11. Complainant explained that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P (C) No. 209/2015 has found that Mr Akash Deep has concealed facts. The Court concluded:
5... the petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts because petitioner has not filed the application by which he applied for being appointed to the WPC 209/2015 Page 5 of 14 post of ED (Law) of the respondent no.2/DERC. Filing of this application was necessary because the record shows that this application for appointment to ED (Law) was not through a proper channel i.e the application was not filed by the petitioner through his parent employer/department of the Department of Posts. In fact, counsel for the respondents argued that if the application had been filed through a proper channel i.e petitioner's parent employer, the application would not even have been forwarded to respondent no.2/DERC because petitioner had already completed the deputation period of seven years and therefore he was required to undergo a cooling off period of three years before an appointment to a post outside his parent department. Clearly therefore the petitioner has deliberately not filed his application which was made to the respondent no.2 for the post of ED (Law) because if filed this application would have shown that it had not been filed through a proper channel being his parent employer/Department of Posts.
7...A reading of the chart Annexure P12 shows that the petitioner is less than fair in making out this chart inasmuch as, even a cursory reference to this chart shows that there is overlapping of periods as given under different periods of deputations, and not only there is overlapping of periods, a deliberate confusion is sought to be created by setting out different appointments at different posts with different employers for the same period of time without giving a last column showing as to which is the period which was served by the petitioner on deputation with which different employers/departments other than the parent employer. The obvious reason for filing a garbled chart is that the petitioner somehow or the other wants to create a smoke screen for arguing that he has not completed a total period of 7 years outside his parent employer. To compound the confusion, petitioner has not even filed the orders showing specific periods of deputations with specific employers/departments other than his parent department of Department of Posts.
13. Therefore, looking at it from any angle, whether of petitioner deliberately filing a confusing chart Annexure P12; petitioner not giving separate periods of deputation with separate employers/departments so as to find out the total period of posting outside his parent department; petitioner not filing letters/permissions showing authorization of his parent employer/Department of Posts permitting deputation with different employers/departments, it becomes clear that the petitioner has tried to confuse the issue and the facts. It is however clear that the petitioner has spent till 17.5.2014 a period of 7 years outside his parent department and therefore he has to under go a cooling off period of three years before he is appointed on deputation again outside his parent employer/department of Posts. It is also reiterated herein that it is for this reason of lacks of bonafides on the part of the petitioner that petitioner did not route his application for appointment on deputation as ED (Law) to respondent no.2/DERC through his parent employer being the Department of Posts.
16. In view of the above, this petition is wholly misconceived and is thus dismissed with costs. Counsel for respondents will file their certificates of fees in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Costs can be recovered by the respondents in accordance with law."
12. Complainant referred to another judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 75 /2015 establishing the misrepresentation of Mr Akash Deep Choudhary, as follows :
"16. The appellant has grossly misstated some relevant facts and especially concerning his nomination for training at Faridabad for the reason undisputedly the appellant joined for training at Faridabad on January 21, 2008, but the Ministry of Communication withdrew the candidature of the appellant for training on November 07, 2008 reverting the appellant back to Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. In the meanwhile DOPT had shortlisted three candidates for appointment to the post left vacant by the appellant at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Since the appellant was not holding any lien at the post with Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie he was put on compulsory wait till September 16, 2009.
18. The appellant is also not entitled to relief for two other reasons. Firstly he has misstated in the writ petition that he applied for the post under DERC through proper channel. The matter of fact is that the appellant did not forward his application to DERC through a proper channel and submitted the same directly. The second reason is, as conveyed to us orally at the Bar by learned counsel for the second respondent i.e. DERC that it has already prepared the panel and has offered appointment to the first person on the panel to join as Executive Director (Law) in DERC as a deputationist."
13. The complainant produced a letter written by him to the then Chief Information Commissioner Ms. Sushma Singh on 19.12.2013 stating that Mr Akash Deep Chakravati who in deputation as JS (Law) in Central Information Commission was bypassing DoPT and Deptt. of Post (his cadre controlling authority) by again applying for the post of JS (Law).
14. The complainant, thus, has shown larger public interest in the disclosure of the details about Mr Akash Deep. The Commission finds that the RTI application should have been answered in detail. The PIO refused this information by misusing the order of Madras High Court, which did not stand even for a week. By not taking note of reviewed order of Madras High Court, the PIO proved his attitude against the RTI. Hence, the Commission directs the PIO to show cause as to why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for deliberate suppression of information / obstruction of information by not furnishing proper reply to the complainant; the explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days of receipt of this Order.
Sd/ (M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, Viniyamak Bhawan, CBlock, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi110017.
2. Shri R. K. Jain, 1512B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi110003.