Central Information Commission
Mr. Mahendra Singh Jodha vs Staff Selection Commission on 17 June, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001253 (Show Cause)
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 17/06/2013
Date of decision : 17/06/2013
Name of the Appellant : Sh. Mahendra Singh Jodha,
S/o Sh. Kan Singh Jodha, Kanchan
Nagar, Near RHB Colony, Plot No. 6,
Daurai, Ajmer, Rajsthan305003
Name of the Public Authority : Shri Nityananda Ray,
Under Secretary,
Staff Selection Commission,
CGO Complex, Block No. 12, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Nityananda Ray, Under Secretary
was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We had last heard this case on 1 May 2013. On that date, the CPIO concerned had not appeared. Therefore, we had directed him to appear before us today and explain why he had not provided the information within the stipulated period and had delayed by about two months in providing whatever information. Today, Sri Nityanand Ray, the then CPIO appeared and submitted that the delay of two months was on account of the extraordinary pressure of work due to a number of examinations conducted by the SSC during this period as the in charge of the examination arrangement section all his time was spent CIC/SM/A/2012/001253 (Show Cause) in the preparations for these examinations.
3. This is one more case like several others involving the CPIOs of the SSC. Nearly in every case, the SSC defaults in providing information in time. No amount of punishment, warning or cajoling by the CIC have been of any use. It is a pity. If the SSC and its officers fail to implement the Right to Information (RTI) Act with any degree of seriousness, their trustworthiness among the general public is bound to suffer. As a body entrusted with conducting examinations for recruitment, the SSC should be particularly concerned about its objectivity and competence; its inability to respond to the RTI requests coming from the public in general and the candidates in particular, almost on a regular basis, is bound to raise questions about both. It is understandable that no officer will be able to attend to his duties if these are not commensurate with his abilities and the infrastructure at his command. We have found, case after case, that in the SSC, the officers in charge of conducting examinations or doing postexamination work are also entrusted with the duty of the CPIO. We understand that the SSC does not provide any additional staff support to them. The inevitable consequence of this is their failure in responding to RTI applications in time.
4. This, however, cannot be allowed to persist. While in individual cases we might decide not to impose any penalty in view of the sheer inability of the CPIO in coping with both his normal responsibility and the RTI related work, at some stage, the Chairman of the SSC would have to be held responsible for the delay because, ultimately, he is the holder of the information for the purpose of section 5(5) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. We would like the CPIO to place this order before the Chairman for him to take note and make immediate CIC/SM/A/2012/001253 (Show Cause) arrangements to improve the situation.
5. As far as this case is concerned, we accept the explanation given by the then CPIO and not impose any penalty.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001253 (Show Cause)