Central Information Commission
Mrshyam Kumar vs Gnctd on 13 May, 2016
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/A/2016/000021
Shaym Kunvar v. PIO, C L Bhalla D.A.V. Senior Secondary School
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 01.10.2015 FAA: 09.11.2015 FAO: 24.11.2015
SA: 22.12.2015 Hearing: 18.03.2016 Decision:
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is present. Mr. Arun Arya, Principal and Mr. Parhash represent Public
authority.
FACTS:
2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought for copy of pay bill register from Jan 1993 to till date and attendance register of employees from Feb 1993 to Dec 2001 and Nov 2014, copy of No. EOL certificate used in granting ACP from 2005 to 2010 and in MACP cases currently pending of the teachers of this school etc. Having received no information, appellant filed First Appeal. FAA by his Order dated 24.11.2015 disposed of the appellant stating that the appeal is devoid of any merit. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached Commission. Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. The appellant complained that his colleagues of other schools were granted arrears within 4/5 months, but he was given his arrear after 18 months. He also complained that one lady teacher Smt. Supriya Bhola was granted leave for 1914 days out 2393 working days and another lady teacher Ms. Amitab Bhatia, TGT Maths was also granted 395 days leave out of 697 working days. He also made compliant against Mr. Vinod, Safai Karmachari. He wanted copy of attendance register of all the employees of the school from 1993 to till date. He also stated that he had made complaint to ACB, CM and Deputy CM.
4. The Principal stated that appellant had joined to the school in January, 2011, Education Officer, Zone26 ordered to pay his salary from September, 2010, as the previous DAV Secondary School, Baird Road where the appellant was serving was closed. The department stated that since the school was closed all benefit should be given to the teachers. The Principal gave all the benefits and salary to the appellant and his dues were also released.
5. Regarding granting of benefit under ACP/MACP, the Principal stated that there was discrepancy in MA certificate of the appellant, hence his DPC was not conducted. There are two MA certificate of the appellant with different names, one is Shaym Kumar and another one is Shyam Kunvar. Both the certificates were issued on 30.06.2000. In the OBC certificate the appellant's name is shown as Shyam Kumar. His name was also reflected as Shyam Kumar vide SSC meeting held n 28.03.2000.
6. The Principal stated that based on the complaint made by him, the appellant was allowed to check all records available in the school. Everyday appellant had checked records for every two years. Principal stated that all records from 2000 to 2015 were checked by the appellant and records of 12 years were also provided to him. Principal also told the Commission that appellant was not taking his assigned class properly, and during examination when the Principal having round of the school the appellant was found writing RTI application. All the above points were informed to the higher authorities i.e. Trust/Management of the School for taking necessary action during June, 2015, as Principal has not power to take action against any teacher/staff of the school. The report of inquiry conducted by the Education Department against the appellant was sent to CM Office, but its copy was not furnished to the appellant.
7. After having information about complaint against him, the appellant started complaining against the Principal. He made complaints against the Principal to the CM Office, Deputy CM, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi Police, L.G. Office on the basis of misappropriation of fund. As per order dated 27.01.2016 of Deputy Director of Education Zone26 inquiry was held in the school from 28.01.2016 to 03.02.2016 by 04 member team deployed by the DDE Zone26. The Principal along with Mrs. Ruchika Nijhawan, Head Clerk and In charge of School records ad 04 other staff visited Office of Advisor to Chief Minister (Anti Corruption) Delhi along with relevant documents in accordance with DDE Zone26 letter dated 28.01.2016. But after waiting a long time CM Office told the principal to left behind the original registers/records, but the Principal did not do it.
8. Principal also stated that one complaint was received from Ms. Rekha Singh claimed to be wife of the appellant on 24.09.2004, but the appellant nominated Ms. Shashi for all service related benefits. Another complaint was also received from Mr. Ravi Kumar on 18.10.2011 wherein it was stated that an amount of Rs. three lakh was taken by the appellant. Fatherin law Mr. Rishi Pal Singh of the appellant had also filed a complaint by stating that while the appellant is getting his OBC certificate from Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad he had also got OBC certificate from Delhi. Management of the school vide their letter dated 16.03.2016 stated that matter has discussed with Chairman and LMC meeting will be held on 21.03.2016 on 1130 hours in the school.
DECISION:
9. Heard the submissions made by both the parties. CPIO stated that appellant had filed 10 appeals, but the appellant said he had filed 07 appeals. The Commission finds that he is misusing the RTI Act, even though he has already got the information. There is no public interest in his RTI applications. The Commission in its earlier order No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA delivered on 2562014 in the case of R.C.Jain Vs. DTC, with respect to RTI applications which are repetitive and harassing in nature had observed:
7. The Commission noticed three or four former employees in every public authority, who were either suspended or removed or facing charges, convicted in a crime or facing disciplinary action trying to run a counter inquiries with harassing questions. The Commission also noted an atmosphere of fear and worry was spread in the offices and the officers are hesitating to take action against erring staff members for fear of facing flood of questions under RTI. Sometimes, the RTI applications are running into hundreds similar to those posed by lawyers during cross examination. They appear like a parallel enquiry against the authorities who might have ordered disciplinary action against them..
Res judicata = already decided
12. The Commission noticed that some of the applicants are filing photocopies of RTI requests with the same or other public authorities time and again seeking information, irrespective of the fact that previous application reached second appeal level or information was furnished or refused as decided by the concerned authorities. When not taken to High Court for judicial review in stipulated period, the matter decided in second appeal assumes finality and cannot be sought for again from the PIO. Though Right to Information Act, 2005 did not have any specific provision to bar the repetition for information like Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the universal principle of civil justice 'res judicata' will certainly apply and the repeated request need to be rejected with an emphasis. Two Latin maxims form the basis of this rule, they are: 'interest republicae ut sit finis litium' (= it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and 'nemo devet vis vexari pro una et eadem cause" (=no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause). If the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions entertain the repeated RTI applications, there will be no end to the information litigation and the public authorities would be continuously taxed for no fault of them. Appeal as provided by law is legal, because it is review and an opportunity to challenge the order on reasonable and legal grounds. Filing same or slightly modified application for information which was responded earlier is against the principles of natural justice; both procedural and substantive justice as far as right to information is concerned.
13. The universal principles of civil justice also recognized 'constructive res judicata', which means in the RTI context, when an applicant intends to avail opportunity of obtaining information on a particular subject, he is expected to seek all the related information in that opportunity itself. He cannot file another application for a bit or piece which he forgot to ask, or not advised by his lawyer, or for any other reason. He should ask all possible aspects of information about that subject matter, once and for all. If he does not, it is assumed that he asked for that and was refused properly. This is incorporated in principles of civil procedural justice and practiced universally. It is in the public interest and also to further the objectives of Right to Information Act, that such repeated or unending stream of questions being sought from same or different public authorities to be stopped.
14. The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the information received, file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority as the uncertainty continues. Even the PIO of Central Information Commission is flooded with such repeated questions from thousands angles by same person running into hundreds of RTI applications. As the PIOs went on answering, more and more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing.
The decisions of CIC in Prem Prakash Kumar v NFL, Panipat, (Decision no. 246/IC/ (A)/2006, F.No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00374 & 375 dated 28 August 2006, Shri Gopal Soni v The New India Assurance Company Ltd (F No CIC/AT/A2008/00097, 000116, 000124, dated 12.6.2008), Sh K. Lall v Sh M K Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO, F No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, CIC/SG/C/2011/000760,CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG,CIC/SM/A/2011/001111/SG,CIC/SG/A/20 11/002909 Dated 17th January, 2012, the Hon'ble Commissioners observed that repetition of applications under RTI would lead to wastage of public money and energy of public offices like PIO, AA and CIC.
No scope for repeating under RTI Act
21. The Commission thus holds that though RTI Act, did not specifically provide as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the objective and various provisions of RTI Act, that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly.
Waste of public time and obstructing RTI
26. All the above discussion can be consolidated into:
(i) Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
(ii) Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction of flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.
Citizen has no Right to Repeat
27. For the above reasons and based on objective of the RTI Act, its provisions, their interpretation by the Information Commissioners referred above, reading them together, this Commission observes:
a) The citizen do not have a right to repeat the same or similar or slightly altered information request under RTI Act, 2005, for which he already got response.
b) Once an RTI application is answered, the appellants shall refrain themselves from filing another RTI application against the public authority as once information is received and held by them or posted in public domain, because such information is deemed to have ceased to be 'held' by the public authority.
Repetition shall be ground of refusal
c) Such repetition shall be considered as reasonable ground of refusal under the RTI Act.
d) An applicant or appellant repeating the RTI application or appeal either once or multiple times, suppressing the fact of earlier application and receipt of the answer, the CPIO of public authority shall reject it forthwith after intimating it along with reasons.
Appeals can be rejected
e) The First Appellate Authority and Commission shall be right and reasonable to consider this as a ground for rejecting the first or second appeal, respectively among other reasons if any.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, explained: "67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the 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 counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the nonproductive 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, tranquillity 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."
11. The Supreme Court in ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 has held: "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".
12. In HK Bansal v Department of Telegraph, New Delhi, CIC/BS/A/2014/002319SA, this Commission concluded:
Whether serving/retired employees are having any right to behave in such a manner to torture his colleagues and employer? The Commission opines that such a conduct deserves to be considered as misconduct. There should be a system within the Public Authority to tackle such misconduct of any serving employee/retired employee or by any other staff member/outsourced or similar nature, because they are becoming potential hazards of RTI misuse. Public authority should have evolved a mechanism and service rules or include in conduct rules, to initiate departmental action against existing/retired employees for such misbehavior or misconduct and impose penalty in the nature of cutting increments or pension emoluments for serving or retiring employees accordingly. If the RTI application from its own employee reflects a grievance or compliant, the public authority should address grievance immediately and inform him within one month. If the RTI application is repeated, frivolous or useless one and only meant for harassing other employees or public authority as a whole, then the disciplinary action should be initiated for such alleged misconduct, leading to appropriate action. If they do not act at all against such characters (retired or not retired employees) in indulging in such misconduct of filing frivolous and entertain these repeated RTI applications it will cause huge wasting of public money. The public authority is answerable to public why they are facilitating the misconduct causing damage to public exchequer. Each department has to address the issue of misusing RTI by employee, after thoroughly examining each individual case separately.
Targeting the witnesses, complainants, superior officers who were members of inquiry committee or DPC who did not favour them and seeking whole lot of information about them under RTI Act is irresponsible misuse of the right. It will not only interfere with the independent interdepartmental decision making process, but also instill fear in inquiry officers and dissuade others from lodging complaints against wrongdoers. This increases the already existing space for wrongdoing ultimately affecting the governance. The RTI is not meant for granting such immunity or impunity to wrongdoing employees to misuse RTI to demoralize the complainants and inquiry officers.
13. The Commission observes that these RTI applications are repetitions by appellant inspite of getting all the information as sought by him. There is no public interest involved in his appeals. Commission cannot encourage this kind of indiscipline by the disgruntled employee. The Commission therefore, prefers to admonish the appellant for abusing the RTI Act. In view of the same, Commission does not find any merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, C L Bhalla D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Kajmdewa;am. Near Naaz Cinema, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
2. Shri Shyam Kunvar, 4C/3034, Vasundhara, GhaziabadUP.