Central Information Commission
Mrh Abdul Hadi vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 24 June, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/000764
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001636
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002867
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002218
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002360
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002741
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002893
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/003202
Date of Hearing : 23.06.2015
Date of Decision : 24.06.2015
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Abdul H. Hadi
Puducherry
Respondent : Shri Gunasekaran, CPIO
Chief Secretariat (Education), Dr. S. Udayakumar, FAA/Principal Shri Govind Raj, PIO/Supdt.
Motilal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic College & K. Syed Shaffi, PIO/Dy. Law Officer Smt. Jhanaz Raffi, FAA/Law Officer Govt. of Puducherry Puducherry Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Both parties are present and are heard. The appellant vide several RTI applications has sought information regarding alleged violation of procedure in fixing his pay scale and reimbursing the same to him, correction of date of merger in Corrigendum G.O. Ms. No. 63 as it was fixed arbitrarily, to declare the disciplinary proceeding held against him as null and void, copy of opinion dt. 28.02.1991 given by law dept. to Principal, MNGPC and to declare him as the senior most in MNGPC. Details of all these are reproduced below in a tabulated form:
Appeal No. RTI Date PIO's reply First appeal FAA's order
000764 13.01.2014 14.02.2014 04.03.2014 04.04.2014
001636 26.02.2014 25.03.2014 30.03.2014 30.04.2014
002867 26.02.2014 25.03.2014 30.03.2014 30.04.2014
002218 09.05.2014 10.06.2014 12.06.2014 17.07.2014
002360 29.04.2014 28.05.2014 07.06.2014 04.07.2014
002741 14.06.2014 15.07.2014 21.07.2014 16.09.2014
002893 05.08.2014 08.08.2014 18.08.2014 19.09.2014
003202 07.10.2014 13.10.2014 18.10.2014 03.11.2014
As the issue in the abovementioned appeals is the same, these cases are being heard & decided together.
Page 1 of 7F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/000764 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 13.01.2014, seeking the above information. The PIO in his reply stated that the appellant has given instructions to the Principal/FAA on his claim for pay and that the same does not fall under the RTI Act. The FAA in his order upheld the PIO's reply and recorded that the office had already sent a letter to him dt. 27.03.2014 in respect of his arbitrary claims on pay anomaly.
The appellant re-iterated that the Principal of MNGPC sent an incomplete and belated proposal, due to which he did not get the Senior Scale/Selection Grade and that the same should be rectified by him. The respondent stated that the appellant was appointed as a Sr. Instructor on 01.09.1964. He was charged with misbehaviour and Departmental Proceedings were initiated against him, which came to finality on 20.07.1992, wherein it was decided to reduce 2 stages increment w.e.f. 09.10.1982 and was granted Lecturership with pay scale of 2200-4000 w.e.f. 20.07.1992 as he was facing disciplinary proceedings before that. He further stated that the appellant was relieved from the disciplinary proceedings with imposition of penalty in 1992. He stated that during the DPC held in 1991 for the promotion of Demonstrator/Sr. Instructor and Jr. Lecturers, the appellant's case was not considered as disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. The respondent stated that the appellant had approached the Ld. CAT and got the orders in his favour.
The respondent stated that he was placed in the Sr. scale of pay from 20.07.1998 and the arrears due to him were also paid. He stated that the appellant has not completed 11 years of Lecturership during his service, due to selection grade cannot be granted to him. He further stated that the appellant has repeatedly filing RTI applications regarding:-
1. Promotion to the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 09.04.1991;
2. Fixing of senior scale of pay; and
3. Grant of Selection Grade pay of 12,000-420-18,300, seeking action taken reports and insisting on imposing of penalty to higher authorities, accusing them of having indulged in fraudulent activities in re-fixing of date of grant of Lecturer scale, senior scale and award of selection grade scale of pay, etc. under the pretext of his age and selective cut and paste portions of various notings.
The respondent stated the above claims of the appellant for stepping up of pay and grant of selection grade are not tenable.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001636 F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002867 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 26.02.2014, seeking action taken report on his request for reimbursement of benefits, i.e. his pay should be stepped up and he should be given the senior scale. The PIO in his reply provided the copies of notings of the Principal. The FAA in his order recorded that the appellant's request for stepping up of his pay does not come under the ambit of RTI Act.
The appellant re-iterated that his pay should be stepped up and he should be given the senior scale. The respondent also re-iterated his stand and stated that the issue is same as discussed in F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/000764.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002218 Page 2 of 7 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 09.05.2014, seeking action taken report by directing the PIO to correct the date of merger in Corrigendum G.O. Ms. No. 63 as 19.04.1991, in place of 20.07.1992. The PIO/Supdt. in his reply provided the copy of file noting in Corrigendum G.O. Ms. No. 63. The FAA/US in his order upheld the PIO's decision and recorded that the appellant's request for revising his pay, does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act.
The respondent stated that the information as per available record has been provided and stated that the appellant's request does not come under the purview of the RTI Act.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002360 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 29.04.2014, seeking information regarding stepping up of his pay scale. The PIO in his reply provided the copy of office note. The FAA in his order upheld the PIO's reply and recorded that the appellant cannot direct the FAA, under the pretext of seeking information under RTI Act.
The appellant stated the order passed by the Commission in file no. CIC/RM/A/2012/000233/LS, wherein it was directed to step up his pay scales, but the said order has not been complied with till date. The respondent stated that the CIC's orders have been complied with and that appellant's case has already been considered, senior scale has been given to him along with notings. He re-iterated his stand and stated that the issue is same as discussed in F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/000764.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002741 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 14.06.2014, for declaring the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and order dt. 20.07.1992 as null and void. The PIO/Supdt. in his reply informed the appellant that his request does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act. The FAA/US in his order upheld the PIO's decision.
The respondent apprised the Commission that penalty was imposed on the appellant in 1982, by the then Principal, who was not the Competent Authority to do so, against which the appellant approached the Ld. CAT, wherein he got orders in his favour and the increment was restored. However, the same punishment was given in 1992, by the Competent Authority. He stated that the appellant is contesting the delay of 10 years in imposition of penalty on him and thus, alleging violation in fixing his pay scale and requesting to declare these disciplinary proceedings as null and void and to declare him as the senior most in MNGPC.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002893 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 05.08.2014, seeking a copy of opinion dt. 28.02.1991 given by law dept. to Principal, MNGPC. The PIO/DLO in his reply informed the appellant that the dept. does not maintain a central database of all its advices and opinions given to various departments and requested the appellant to approach MNGPC for seeking information. The RTI application was transferred to PIO/MNGPC vide letter dt. 25.09.2014. The FAA in his order recorded that the information sought in his appeal is vague and not clear. She further recorded that the appellant's prayer to declare 04.07.1983 as the date of exoneration/re-instated to status quo by Law Dept. opinion dt. 28.02.1991, does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act.
The respondent stated that the appellant had approached MNGPC and he has got the copy of the legal opinion dt. 28.02.1991 that he is seeking. She stated that the same was given to him Page 3 of 7 by MNGPC vide letter dt. 28.10.2014, a copy of which has been furnished before the Commission.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/003202 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 07.10.2014, requesting him to be declared as Senior most in MNGPC. The PIO/Supdt. in his reply informed the appellant that his request does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act. The FAA/US in his order upheld the PIO's decision.
The appellant stated that false information has been given. The respondent stated the appellant was requesting him to be declared as senior most in MNGPC and not consider the disciplinary proceedings order issued dt. 20.07.1992. He stated that the same does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act.
Decision:
The appellant, in the abovementioned 8 second appeals, has broadly sought information regarding:-
4. Promotion to the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 09.04.1991;
5. Fixing of senior scale of pay; and
6. Grant of Selection Grade pay of 12,000-420-18,300, and has been seeking action taken reports and insisting on imposing of penalty to higher authorities, accusing them of having indulged in fraudulent activities in re-fixing of date of grant of Lecturer scale, senior scale and award of selection grade scale of pay, etc. The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by relentlessly filing a series of RTI applications to harass the officials of a public authority, by a disgruntled employee of the same organisation. Moreover, the information sought in most of his RTI applications are not information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. He has asked the PIO/FAA to grant him senior pay scale, to correct the date of merger in Corrigendum G.O. Ms. No. 63, to declare the disciplinary proceeding held against him as null and void and to declare him as the senior most in MNGPC. Still, information has been provided and replies given by the respondent authorities. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, is clearly seeking redressal of his grievance under the pretext of seeking information, with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through a flurry of RTI applications. The RTI Act cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty.
The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC
946) has termed fling of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the following observations of Pasayat J. in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11):
"It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have Page 4 of 7 been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system."
The respondent authority cannot be compelled to furnish information on the appellant's whimsical and impractical demands analogous to reckless allegations on the part of the respondent authority.
The Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. held, "37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be Page 5 of 7 converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." The appellant has filed a number of RTI applications regarding the same issue of his promotion, fixing of senior scale of pay and grant of selection grade before the respondent public authority. The public authority has already spent inordinately large number of man hours in furnishing the reply/information to the appellant, which in the process would have already impinged on the scarce resources of the organization. Also, the appellant has been raising similar issues before the Commission, since the year 2008 and the same have been heard and decided, time and again. However, the appellant has been, relentlessly, filing RTI applications, first and second appeals thereon, for his personal gain, which is adversely affecting the efficiency of the administration and resulting in the public authority getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information, for redressing the grievance of the appellant.
The Commission, therefore, is constrained to warn the appellant to be more careful in future, failing which the Commission will be compelled to dismiss his applications without hearing, on the grounds of being vexatious and repetitive and with an ulterior motivate. No further action is warranted, in the above mentioned cases, on the part of the respondent authorities.
With these observations, the appeals and complaints are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:-
Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI Head of the Department - (ECE), Principal, Motilal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic College, Motilal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic College, Lawspet, Lawspet, Puducherry-605008. Puducherry-605008.
Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI
Superintendent - Education-I, Under Secretary to the Govt.-(Education),
Chief Secretariat - Education, Chief Secretariat - Education,
Government of Puducherry, Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry-605008. Puducherry-605008.
Page 6 of 7
Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI Deputy Law Officer, Law Officer, Law Department, Law Department, Government of Puducherry, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry-605008. Puducherry-605008.
Shri H. Abdul Hadi No.-12, Govindasamy Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Puducherry-605011.Page 7 of 7