Central Information Commission
Pawan Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 26 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SSCOM/C/2022/643168
Pawan Kumar .... शकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission
Head Office, RTI Cell, Block-12,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003. ... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/04/2023
Date of Decision : 21/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 25/01/2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06/08/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. Action taken on my representation dated 22.05.2015 to till date 1
2. Certified collies of noting sheets regarding movement of my representation from 22.05.2015 to till date.
3. Name and designation, E mail address and contact number of the Officer competent to take action on my representation dated 22.05.2015.
4. Inspection of all files relating to my representation dated 22.05.201.5."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 25.01.2022 stating as under:
"The Commission has already provided all the available information and several opportunities to inspect the files on the requisite information against replies to various numerous similar RTI applications and against connected CIC orders.
Further, applicant has made repetitive RTI applications on the same issues time and again which has been appropriately replied.
In view of the CIC order CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, where CIC has clearly stated that ...repetition shall be ground of refusal. Your request is being refused."
FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Ram Sagar, CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Complainant was heard at length on the same lines as that of his written submissions stating as under:
ii) The CPIO Sh. R.RajaKannu ,US(P&P)-I had issued a communication dated 25.01.2022 F.NO. 2-4/2020-P&P-I where in specifically refused the information by giving citation of the CIC in order CIC/AD/A/2013/001/1326-SA dated 25.06.2014 .
iii) This citation of the CIC which has been based by the CPIO to refuse information to me no longer exists. This observation of the CIC has already been 2 overruled by the then Information Commissioner, Sh. D.P. Sinha vide its order no. CIC/SSCOM/A/2018/149838 dated 11.03.2020 and imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- on the FAA resultantly the SSC has also withdrawn its order on 29/30.04.202 vide F.No. 1/3/2017/RTI/PK Acton and endorse the copy of order to all the CPIO of the SSC including Sh R.RajaKannu ,the CPIO.
iv) The CPIO being a Senior Class-I Officer in the present case cannot be taken as ignorant of this Order dated 29/30.04.2020. The CPIO is intentionally harassing the appellant in flatly refusing the disclosure of information which is very much available in his records.
v) The CPIO has also taken plea for refusing the information to me that I had filed numerous RTI applications. This is not correct. Moreover, till the applicant gets the required information which is available in the records of the CPIO, he is not barred to file the RTI application to get the desired information.
vi) That it is also for the information of your goodself that Sh. R.RajaKannu, CPIO have not complied the directions issued by your goodself in two SAs nos. CIC/SSCOM/A/2018/173708 and CIC/SSCOM/A/2019/123698 resulting in two non-compliance petitions No. 106818 dated 08/12.02.2021and 112184 dated 18/19.03.2021 which are pending for disposal in the Registry of your goodself .
vii) It is also for the kind information of Information Commissioner Ms. Saroj Punhani that S. R.RajaKannu ,the CPIO is in the habit of not making efforts for complete and correct compliance of the CIC Orders and is always ready to frustrate the right of the applicant to the best of his ability and crookedness.
viii) The CPIO in his communication dared 25.01.2022 has nowhere stated that the information is not available in his records meaning thereby the information which I have sought in my RTI application is very much available in the records available with him.
ix) The CPIO by refusing to supply information available in the records under the RTI Act,2005 has clearly committed Contempt of the RTI Act,2005. The Act has been enacted by the Parliament of Govt. of India specially keeping in view the problems faced by the helpless and poor applicants to get information from the offices of the Govt. of India. The RTI Act,2005 is the only help available with the applicant to get the information from the Public Authorities. The CPIO in this case has shown least interest to give available information under the RTI act,2005.
3x) By refusing the legal information under the RTI Act,2005 the CPIO has been a source of mental torture to the applicant time and again and also is a source of wastage of precious time and a burden on the Public Ex-chequer also.
xi) The CPIO does not deserve a lenient view but may be proceeded under the relevant Sections of the RTI Act,2005.
xii) The copy of this complaint had already given to the CPIO on 08.08.2022. Till date neither the CPIO denied the facts of complaint not supplied the available information. Hence deemed denial of available information under the RTI Act, 2005.
B. The US(P&P-I) & CPIO may be directed to supply the information as sought vide RTI dated 21.08.2018 and inspections of files relating to my representation dated 22.05.2015.
C. Compensation may be provided to the appellant as I have suffered my carrier promotion avenue as my juniors were promoted, heavy financial loss due to legal cases, mental stress and social stigma by not providing the information by the CPIO and FAA. D. Heavy cost may also be imposed on the CPIO and FAA for wilfully disobey the RTI Act,2005.
The CPIO submitted with immense angst that so far almost every other CPIO of SSC would have dealt with the Complainant's RTI Applications, all of which revolves around only one grievance related to fixation of seniority and promotion. Infact the letter referred to in the instant RTI Application dates back to the year 2015, post which he started filing these series of RTI Applications wherein he would merely seek to action taken on his representation and then action taken on reminders to the representations. He further explained that it is not the case that SSC has withheld any information but the Appellant is not even asking for information but constant action taken reports on the same grievance, same representation over and over again while SSC has offered him due inspection of the records and yet when he approaches the CIC, he claims that no records were shown to him or provided to him which is not true. He lastly submitted that even as on date he would like to ask the Complainant what exactly is he looking for in terms of information that a CPIO under the RTI Act can provide and if that information is available with SSC, there is no reason to withhold to cause any harassment to the Complainant. He urged the bench to ensure that an end to put to this continuous process adopted by the Complainant.
4The Complainant burst out in frenzied arguments outrightly rejecting the allegations of the CPIO and insisted that the bench should peruse the earlier orders and his non-compliance applications.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that, the contention of the Complainant that the CIC order citation quoted by the CPIO in his reply was struck down vide File No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2018/149838 dated 11.03.2020 is grossly incorrect as the said order sought to strike down the SSC Circular of the year 2017 issued on the basis of an interpretation of the CIC order in File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA, and not the order itself.
Further, a bare perusal of the Commission's archives suggests that concededly, the Complainant has filed a number of RTI Applications and Appeals on the same subject matter of grievance and this representation of the year 2015 referred to in the instant RTI Application has been the subject reference of File Nos. CIC/SSCOM/A/2019/123698; CIC/SSCOM/A/2018/173708; CIC/SSCOM/A/2017/134118; CIC/SSCOM/A/2016/297476/MP, while other similar representations have been the subject reference of other Appeals, totaling to a figure of 24 Appeal(s) heard and decided till date since the year 2017 and in almost all such cases, some or the other relief has been ordered to the Complainant, including in the matters dealt with by this bench. Pertinently so, in one of the decided cases vide File Nos. CIC/SSCOM/A/2020/677883 + CIC/SSCOM/A/2020/119353, this bench endorsed the following observation made in another set of earlier Appeal(s) filed by the Appellant vide CIC/SSCOM/A/2019/151636 + 154873 as under:
"The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that the Appellant has filed the instant RTI Application based on a CPIO's reply of 05.08.2019 which was already made a subject matter of an earlier Appeal filed by him vide CIC/SSCOM/A/2019/151636 + 154873 and was decided on 17.08.2021 as under:
'Even if the Commission were to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant during the hearing, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also 5 stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'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 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.' Having observed as above, the Commission does not find it expedient to adjudge the merits of the CPIO's replies or order any relief in the matter.' 6 The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission."
Adverting to the fact that the Complainant through the instant RTI Application again seeks information on the action taken on the same representation of the year 2015, and the gamut of cases pursued by him so far is indicative of the fact that he is not accessing his right to information per se but seeks to channelize his agony against the service-related grievance through the channel of RTI Act by mortifying the CPIOs for not providing the information to his satisfaction. In other words, he appears to be not satisfied with the manner SSC dealt with his grievance petitions and therefore is seeking to redress his grievance by way of the RTI Act. Therefore, in furtherance of the earlier observations, the Complainant's attention is invited to certain more precedents of the superior Courts that recognize the misuse of the RTI Act as under:
In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' 7 And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' Adverting to the above observations, the Commission is not inclined to question the merits of the CPIO's reply in the instant matter. The Complainant is advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed.
The Complainant is further advised to pursue his grievance emanating from the inaction/action taken on his representation of the year 2015 before the appropriate forum.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहा न) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा!णतस"या#पत त) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक *दनांक / Date 8