Central Information Commission
Mr. Jagdish Chand vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 17 March, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003446/11293Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003446
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Chand,
A 339,Jahangir Puri,
Delhi 110033.
Respondent : Mr. Akbar Ali,
Deemed PIO & Sanitation Superintendent Office of Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi 16, Rajpur Road Delhi - 110054 RTI application filed on : 15/10/2010 PIO reply 1 : 28/10/2010 PIO reply 2 23/11/2010 First appeal filed on : 15/11/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 26/11/2010 Second Appeal received on : 30/11/2010 Notice of Hearing sent on : 04/01/2011 Hearing held on : 04/02/2011 Information Sought:
1- Details and no of as well division of sanitary inspector, assistant sanitary inspector and other safai karamcharis in the block of Jahangirpuri.
2- Names, contact no. and details of no of garbage house and sanitary inspectors heading them. 3- Details of the reason for not taking any action against throwing of the garbage outside the garbage house. 4- List of name and address the missing safai karamcharis of Jahangirpuri. 6- Details of the reason why appropriate actions are not taken for cleanliness in Jahangirpuri 7- No of days when the swears are cleaned.
8- Reason of the garbage been thrown by the safai karamcharis outside the public toilets. 9- Reason for Jahangirpuri not having a single trolley for garbage disposal. 10- Reason and the time when each trolley will be kept besides the heaps of garbage collected. 11- Details of the actions taken on the officers of the private corporation on the lapse on their behalf. 12- Details of the duration of the safai karamcharis and their attendance per day. 13- Copy of the orders to the safai karamcharis for wearing the uniform along with the names or details of the actions taken on the employees who refuse to wear the uniform. 14- Details of the actions taken and to whom it should be addressed when an employer is found drinking on duty.
15- Details of the actions taken on the employee who demand money or threat challan to throw garbage from the gate of the building/offices/houses.
16- Copy of the Challan booklet of the MCD.
17- Details of the actions taken for not giving away any complaint no or the actions taken after the complaint has been filed on the phone to the control room.
18- Details of the officers and their office whose duty is to maintain the cleanliness of the public toilets. 19- Details for the reason for not any FIR been filed till date for the public toilets becoming centre of illegal actions.
20- Copy of the documents of the deal when the public toilets have been handed over to the private hands.Page 1 of 4
1st Reply of PIO (CONSOLIDATED REPLY):
17. Complaint no is immediately given to the filer of the complain over phone and actions are taken accordingly.
Rest information does not come under the department's jurisdiction.
2ndReply of PIO ;
1 Name of safai inspector Sanjeev Kumar Yadav no. 8800696550 Name of assistant safai inspector Telu Ram Gupta Office in the lane besides JE Office Mangal Bazaar road in A and H Block 88 permanent workers and 15 temporary workers.
2 there are in A Block 4 and H block 1 garbage house. 3 the related company is responsible for maintenance of heaps of garbage. 4 there are no missing employees under the department. 6 the related company do manage the heaps of garbage and maintain cleanliness of streets.
7 the sewar lanes are cleaned everyday and the garbage is thrown the very next day after cleaning the sewar lanes.
8 the running public toilets are maintained with hygiene. 9 &10 questions relate to private company.
11 the company gives tenders from time to time. The tenders given to the contractors is a high level subject.
12 The duty of safai karamchari is from 7 in the morning till 3 pm and the attendance taken is 7 12 and 3pm from the biometric machine.
13 no name plate has been given to the employees and it is mandatory for those given to wear the uniform. 14 FIR can be filed against the employee drinking on duty. 15 the complaint can be registered and the actions will be taken on any cleanliness related problem. 16 the booklet can be received Town Hall Head Office 17 The inspections are done as soon as the complains are filed in the Control room. 18&19 The MCD constructed toilets are maintained by MCD and Engineering department.
First Appeal:
Information was provided only about block A & H Order of the FAA:
The PIO is directed to furnish complete information within 15 working days the appeal is disposed off.
Ground for the Second appeal:
Through imposing heavy penalty and strict actions against the PIO provide complete information free of cost.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 04/02/2011: The following were present Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Chand;
Respondent : Mr. Kripal Singh, Zonal Superintendent on behalf of Mr. Ved Prakash Gupta, PIO & AC; Mr. Akbar Ali, Sanitation Superintendent, (Civil Line);
"The Respondent admits that information had not been sent about the other blocks to the Appellant inspite of the order of the FAA on 26/11/2010 to provide the information within 15 working days. Mr. Akbar Ali admits that he was responsible for providing the information and accepts responsibility for not having provided the information. The Respondent has brought the information with him and has been given to the Appellant during the hearing."
Decision dated 04/02/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The information has been provided to the Appellant before the Commission. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. Akbar Ali within 30 days as required by the law.Page 2 of 4
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Akbar Ali, Sanitation Superintendent will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 17 March 2011 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant."
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing on 17/03/2011:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Akbar Ali, Deemed PIO & Sanitation Superintendent;
The Deemed PIO & SS Mr. Akbar Ali has submitted that he was suffering from Glaucoma (Eye disease) and was got operated at AIIMS on 14/12/2010. Due to this he was on the leave since 08/12/2010 to 23/12/2010. After this 15 days leave he had joined the office but he had to go for regular check up i.e. after 2:00pm every day. However he states that there is no record of this. He has also submitted that during this period his colleague Mr. R.K. Sharma, who had retired on 30/09/2010, was assisting him. As per the FAA's order dated 26/11/2010 the complete information should have been provided within 15 working days i.e. on or before 17/12/2010, however, the complete information was provided on 04/02/2011 before the Commission. If a Government officer is not well and absence himself from duty there has to be a record and he may be entitled to leave as per the appropriate rules. However to claim that he did not attend to his work and therefore only attended part time but did not record this is not an acceptable excuse. The information should have been provided before 17 December 2010 as per the FAA's order but the information has been provided only on 04/02/2011 i.e. before the Commission after a delay of 47 days. The Commission reduces the period of 15 days from this for which the Appellant was on medical leave and yet there is a delay of 32 days for which there is no reasonable cause for the delay.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be."
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.Page 3 of 4
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
The Commission holds Mr. Akbar Ali, Deemed PIO & Sanitation Superintendent responsible for the delay of 32 days in providing the information after the order of the FAA without any reasonable cause. Hence the Commission imposes the penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Akbar Ali, Deemed PIO & Sanitation Superintendent at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 32 days i.e. `250/- X 32 days = `8000/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Akbar Ali, Deemed PIO & Sanitation Superintendent. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 32 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Akbar Ali `8000/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `8000/- from the salary of Mr. Akbar Ali 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 `4000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Akbar Ali and remitted by the 10th April 2011 and 10th May 2011. The total amount of `8000/- will be remitted by 10th of May, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 17 March 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM) CC:
To, 1- Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066 Page 4 of 4