Central Information Commission
Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu vs Niti Aayog on 7 August, 2025
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं#या/Second Appeal No. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/669319
Sh. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. Shri Piyush Chand Gupta
Director (HR) and CPIO,
Unique Identification Authority
of India, Bangla Sahib Road,
Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market,
New Delhi - 110001
2. Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary
FAA & Deemed PIO,
Unique Identification Authority
of India, Bangla Sahib Road,
Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market,
New Delhi - 110001
3. Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar
Chief Executive Officer,
Unique Identification Authority
of India, Bangla Sahib Road,
Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market,
New Delhi - 110001
...% तवाद /Respondents
Page 1 of 46
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Date of First Hearing: 02.01.2024
Decision: 11.01.2024
Date of SCN Hearing: 15.05.2024
Final Decision in respect of SCN Proceedings: 24.05.2024
Date of Penalty amount receipt in Central 12.07.2024
Registry of CIC
Date of Hearing in compliance with directions 26.06.2025
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
dated 17.04.2025 in W.P.(C) 3019/2025
Decision w.r.t. representation dated 07.08.2025
25.06.2024:
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information sought:
I. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"The applicant, I, Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS, a member of All India Services of Kerala Cadre is taking care of Rehabilitation of Multiple Disabilities of my daughters in the support set up in the Jharkhand State since, Dec.2012. As provisioned in O.M. No. 42011/3/2014- Estt.(Res.), dated-06.06.2014 of the DoPT, in accordance with the direction of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC), Govt. of India vide OM No. 37/33/2012-EO(SM-I),dated- 31.05.2018, the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), Govt. of India vide it's Order No. 22/05/2017 EO(SM-I), DoPT, dated-26.10.2018 approved my appointment as Assistant Director General (ADG) for a period of 5 years by temporarily downgrading the post of DDG, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi initially for a period of 2 years (further extendable on year to year basis), vice Ms. Nandana Munshi, IA&AS (1991), seek the following information's, under RTI Act.2005 and to the best of his knowledge, the required information is pertaining to the Human Resource Division of the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi. I. Furnish certified copy of the Note sheets of the File and Order/O.M./Notification of the competent authority of UIDAI, communicating/conveying its concurrence for appointment of Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005) at UIDAI.Page 2 of 46
II. Furnish the certified copy of the office orders or notifications of the UIDAI, assigning the roles and responsibilities to Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005) in accordance with the Order No. 22/05/2017 EO(SM-I), DoPT, dated-26.10.2018, upon his joining at UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi w.e.f.- 01.11.2018.
III. Furnish certified copy of all the Office Orders of the UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi, communicated to the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi (for the period from- 01.11.2018 to 18.08.2022) of Work Allocation to Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005), ADG/Director, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi. IV. Furnish certified copy of Report communicated to the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi by the DDG, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi who is/were Reporting/Controlling Authority w.r.t. Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005), ADG/Director for breach of any regulation of the Authority or negligence, inefficiency in discharge of the assigned duties or violations of any of the provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and/or Unique Identification Authority of India (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 2020 during the period of his working at UIDAI w.e.f. 01.11.2018 till date.
V. Furnish certified copy of the show-cause notice issued or explanation called for, if any w.r.t. reported (by the Reporting/Controlling Authority) breach of any regulation of the Authority or negligence, inefficiency in discharge of the assigned duties or violations of any of the provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and/or Unique Identification Authority of India (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 2020 by Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS, Director, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi during the period of his working at UIDAI w.e.f. 01.11.2018 till date.
VI. Furnish certified copy of the order of authorization for regulation of deputation tenure of a member of the All India Services appointed/deputed at UIDAI vide appointment order of the Competent Authority (ACC) as per the Deputation Guidelines for All India Service officers vide F. No. 14017/33/2005- AIS (II)(Pt.1), dated-28.11.2007 of the Govt. of India, DoPT. VII. Furnish certified copy of Note sheet of the file and letter/Office Memorandum, of the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi communicated, if any, as per the procedure laid down by the DoPT i.r.o. the officers of All India Services working under the Government of India and organizations under the Government of India and recommending with Administrative Exigencies/grounds for curtailment of deputation tenure and pre-mature repatriation of the services of Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005), ADG /Director, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi.
VIII. Furnish certified copy of Order/ Office Memorandum of Constitution/Establishment of DDG Secretariat at UIDAI, Regional Office, Page 3 of 46 Ranchi and Sanctioned strength of staffs in the said DDG Secretariat. at Ranchi."
II. The Registry of this Bench had issued hearing notices to both parties in respect of the Second Appeal. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 02.01.2024.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 02.01.2024:
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, Director (HR Div.) & CPIO UIDAI along with Shri B. Gupta, UIDAI present in person.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of instant appeal and RTI application as mentioned above, submitted that he is aggrieved by the fact that desired information against point nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application were not provided deliberately with mala fide intent causing harm to him.
The appellant, in respect of point no. 4 of the RTI application submitted that the CPIO had denied the information citing exception of Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005 which was also upheld by the FAA and that too without assigning any material reasons.
Against point no. 7 of the RTI application, the appellant pleaded that the respondent had provided partial documents marked as Annexure "E" and "F". He informed that from the said Annexure "E" the applicant for the first time came to know, that action has been initiated and completed at UIDAI HQ, HR Division as per the report of Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, ITS, DDG, RO, Ranchi. Further from the 2-4 of the said Annexure "F", the appellant came to know that UIDAI, HR Division requested DoP&T for issuance of necessary relieving orders for premature repatriation of Shri KDP Sahu, Director, UIDAI, RO Ranchi based on the approval sought and obtained from the Hon'ble Minister of Electronics & Information Technology.
The appellant further submitted that as per the partially provided note sheet furnished in reply to query No. 7 it is evident that without giving any notice of the complain/allegation brought by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, DDG, UIDAI, RO, Ranchi, extreme coercive steps has been taken and concluded for premature repatriation of the applicant from the post of Director/ADG UIDAI RO thereby grossly violating the principal of natural justice.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have provided point-wise reply/information as per the records available with them vide letter dated 21.09.2022. They further submitted that since, the appellant is satisfied with the information/documents provided on point nos., 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 8 of the RTI application, they are restricting their argument on point nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application only. They argued that as the case of applicant's Page 4 of 46 premature repatriation was under examination and had not reached finality, hence, information sought on point no. 4 of the RTI application was denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
Against point no. 7, the respondent informed that the appellant sought certified copy of Note Sheet of the file for curtailment of deputation tenure and pre-mature repatriation of the services. They further stated that they were under impression that Note#1 to note#16 was not related to the information sought by appellant, therefore, the same was not furnished. However, they agreed to provide the complete information on point no. 7 of the RTI application.
III. The Commission passed the following observations and directions on 11.01.2024:
""The Commission after adverting to the facts, perusal of records and hearing both the parties noted that the respondent have provided point-wise information/reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.09.2022. The appellant during the hearing expressed his satisfaction over the information provided by the respondent on the all the points except on point nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application.
Perusal of the records revealed that the respondent had denied the information sought on point no. 4 of the RTI application under Section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act. The respondent failed to explain as to how the exemption claimed by them would apply in this case. Plain reading of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, states that anything which would hamper and interfere with procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold back the progress of investigation, apprehension of offenders or prosecution of offenders. However, the impediment, if alleged, must be actual and not make belief and a camouflage to deny information.
In B.S. Mathur vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court, (2011) 125 DRJ 508, High Court of Delhi has made the following observations:
19. ......The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what Page 5 of 46 manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation.
Even if one went by the interpretation placed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7930 of 2009 [Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) v. CIC, decision dated 30th November 2009] that the word "impede" would "mean anything which would hamper and interfere with the procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold back the progress of investigation", it has still to be demonstrated by the public authority that the information if disclosed would indeed "hamper" or "interfere" with the investigation, which in this case is the second enquiry."
It may be noted that no such justification has been provided by the Respondent public authority while denying information in the instant case, which arise out of Appellant's own service matter. The concerned FAA has also failed to discharge his duty in the spirit of RTI Act blindly endorsing the reply of the CPIO without studying the facts of the case in hand and thereby, the FAA has not passed speaking order.
In addition to the above, the respondent had also not provided complete information against point no. 7 of the RTI application. Though, during the course of hearing, they expressed their preparedness to provide the complete information on point no. 7 along with all the annexures. It is pertinent to mention that information as sought by the appellant in the aforesaid RTI application should have been provided within the time frame. As per the submission of the appellant, if the information sought was given within the timeline, he could have raised his grievance before an appropriate authority. But due to lapse of time, damaged done to him may not be cured. The Commission observes that reply given by the respondent is evasive, misleading and incomplete.
In view of the above, Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the FAA in the capacity of deemed PIO are directed to show cause as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the information within the stipulated time. The present CPIO is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the FAA and secure their attendance on the next date of hearing and also submit their written explanations. All the written explanations of the CPIO & the FAA (deemed CPIO) must reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised information on point no. 4 and 7 of the RTI application, within three weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order."
IV. The written explanations were called for by the Registry of this Bench from the Respondent in respect of the SCN issued. Thereafter, the matter is listed for hearing on 15.05.2024.
Page 6 of 46Relevant Facts emerged during Show cause Hearing on 15.05.2024:
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, FAA-cum-DDG (HR, Admin and CVO) and Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, CPIO-cum-Director (HR), appeared in person.
The appellant inter alia submitted that in compliance of the Commission's order, desired information has been provided by the respondent. However, he pleaded that he has suffered due to the delay in providing the information by the respondent authority. He further submitted that the respondents (CPIO and FAA) in the instant case were very well aware that there was/is, no investigation whatsoever, initiated/pending against him. Therefore, with mala fide intention the CPIO and the FAA, UIDAI HQ, New Delhi arbitrarily invoked Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 with ulterior motive of precluding the applicant from exercising his fundamental and natural rights to know the basis of initiation and conclusion of extreme coercive measures taken against him. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for maximum penalty on the concerned CPIO and the FAA as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The respondents while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided the desired information on point Nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application and thus, complied with the directions given by the Commission in its order dated 11.01.2024. They further submitted that most of the information sought for by the appellant against his application dated 22.08.2022 were provided by the concerned CPIO including the information against point No. 4 indirectly as the information provided against point No. 7 (copy of the Note sheets).
They added that information sought against point No. 4 were related to a confidential letter dated 13.05.2022 regarding the non-performance of the Applicant by his controlling officer, subsequent input received on the performance of the Applicant from his controlling officer vide email dated 22.06.2022 stating that there was no visible improvement in his performance and thus recommending his pre-mature repatriation. The entire matter was under examination/consideration in DOP&T and had not reached its finality. They stated that disclosure of Applicant's controlling officers' confidential letter and email on his non-performance and recommendation for pre-mature repatriation would have caused disharmony between the Reporting officer i.e. DDG(RO-Ranchi) and the Reported officer i.e. the Applicant and would have vitiated the working atmosphere of the Regional Office, Ranchi. Therefore, the information sought was denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. Besides, they informed that the appellant's deputation tenure was completing on Page 7 of 46 31.10.2023 and till 31.10.2023, no decision was taken by the competent authority on UIDAI's recommendation on his pre-mature repatriation and therefore, he completed his full tenure in UIDAI and was relieved from UIDAI, w.e.f. 31.10.2023.
In addition to the above, the respondents admitted that denial of information was not expressly covered under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. They stated that the error was committed inadvertently and had no mala fide and accordingly prayed that show causes notices be dropped and no penalty be imposed against them (CPIO/FAA).
During the course of hearing appellant submitted that both the respondents are connected with HR matters and thus in the knowledge of his two children being PwD and undergoing treatment in Ranchi. Despite that they gave him additional charge of Patna for a period of above three months. The officer alleging non- performance was the controlling officer for the additional charge of Patna unit and not his main charge at Ranchi. He further submitted that all three were working in tandem to harass him as he had begun pointing out misdeeds by these three. There was clearly an attempt to harm his interests and tarnish his reputation. It is another matter that they did not succeed in it. As such, they had the intention to harm him and also acted on that intention.
V. The Commission passed the final decision in the Show Cause Proceedings vide order dated 24.05.2024 with the following observations:
"The Commission after adverting to the facts, perusal of records and hearing both the parties noted that the respondent has provided the information up to the satisfaction of the appellant vide letter dated 30.01.2024 and thus, order dated 11.01.2024 of the Commission is complied with. It is pertinent to mention that information sought was provided after lapse of more than one year and eight months and that too after intervention of the Commission.
The information sought by the appellant was related to his premature repatriation which was denied partially by the respondents by claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. However, the respondents while replying to the RTI application and the first appeal failed to explain as to how the disclosure of information would fall within the said exempted provisions. The FAA did not apply his mind and simply endorsed the reply given by the CPIO. The order passed by the FAA was cryptic and non-speaking. At the seniority of FAA of the rank of a DDG that too of HR, Administration and CVO, such casual approach can have very demoralizing effect on the personnel working in the organization and also erodes their confidence in the appeal mechanism enshrined in the RTI Act. Same holds true for the CPIO also, who is the Director (HR) in the organization. Their conduct in terms of fairness and Page 8 of 46 judiciousness ought to have been exemplary in the instant matter. The respondents during the hearing admitted their mistake for wrongly claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
The Perusal of the record reveals that the concerned CPIO and the FAA have evaded their responsibilities entrusted upon them and therefore, acted against the true spirit of the RTI Act. The written explanations given by the respondent in response to the show cause notices are not satisfactory. The acts of the then CPIO and the then FAA show their non-seriousness and lackadaisical approach towards the provisions of the RTI Act as well as towards the Commission. The delay caused in the matter is attributable on part of the respondents. The matter assumes higher gravity because both are looking after HR matter and one of them is CVO also. ln view of the above mola fide on part of both officials, the then CPIO and the then FAA are established, the Commission finds it a fit case for imposition of penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act.
The Commission observed that the negligence of duty as the then CPIO and the then FAA appears to be deliberate and mala fide are established on part of Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, deemed CPIO, hence, both are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. In view of this, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on each of them are imposed on both officers (total amount of Rupees Twenty thousand only). This penalty amount should be deducted from the salaries/pension of each of the two i.e. Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, deemed CPIO/the then FAA, by the Public Authority in two equal installments and paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067.
The first installment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 15.07.2024 and the final installment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 15.08.2024.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
VI. In compliance with the direction passed by the CIC vide order dated 24.05.2024, Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO, vide letter dated 12.07.2024, informed the Commission as under:
"Sir, The Respondent in the above captioned case namely Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary (then FAA, UIDAI) sought modification of the Final Order dated 24.05.2024 made available with him on 06.06.2024 to the extent that mala-fide has held to Page 9 of 46 have been established on the part of FAA and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each has been imposed under Section 20(1) of RTI, Act.
The penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be deposited with this Hon'ble Commission in two equal instalments the first instalment payable latest by 15.07.2024 and the second instalment payable latest by 15.08.2024. Please be informed that the undersigned has filed an Application No. F.12013 /18/11-UIDAI (Vol.V)/1866 dated 25.06.2024 seeking modification of the Final order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Commission. The undersigned reserves his right to avail of legal remedy in accordance with law before the competent judicial forum to challenge the operative portion of the said final order passed by this Hon'ble Commission. Pending the adjudication of Application Dated 25.06.2024, seeking modification of the order Dated 24.05.2024, please find attached DD amounting Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousands only) bearing No. 502610 drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT"
payable at New Delhi issued by ICICI Bank Dated 12.07.2024, in full compliance with Operative portion of Order Dated 24.05.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Commission, under protest, subject to the adjudication of Application seeking modification and without prejudice to my constitutional and legal right to avail legal remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate competent judicial forum."
VII. In compliance with the direction passed by the CIC vide order dated 24.05.2024, Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA, vide letter dated 12.07.2024, informed the Commission as under:
"Sir, The Respondent in the above captioned case namely Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary (then FAA, UIDAI) sought modification of the Final Order dated 24.05.2024 made available with him on 06.06.2024 to the extent that mala-fide has held to have been established on the part of FAA and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each has been imposed under Section 20(1) of RTI, Act.
The penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be deposited with this Hon'ble Commission in two equal instalments the first instalment payable latest by 15.07.2024 and the second instalment payable latest by 15.08.2024. Please be informed that the undersigned has filed an Application No. F.12013 /18/11-UIDAI (Vol.V)/1866 dated 25.06.2024 seeking modification of the Final order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Commission. The undersigned reserves his right to avail of legal remedy in accordance with law before the competent judicial forum to challenge the operative portion of the said final order passed by this Hon'ble Commission.Page 10 of 46
Pending the adjudication of Application Dated 25.06.2024, seeking modification of the order Dated 24.05.2024, please find attached DD amounting Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousands only) bearing No. 502609 drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT"
payable at New Delhi issued by ICICI Bank Dated 12.07.2024, in full compliance with Operative portion of Order Dated 24.05.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Commission, under protest, subject to the adjudication of Application seeking modification and without prejudice to my constitutional and legal right to avail legal remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate competent judicial forum."
VIII. Thereafter, the Respondent Public Authority filed a Writ Petition (C) bearing No. 3019/2025 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The operating portion of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order 17.04.2025 is reproduced below:
"xxx
15. It is noticed that out of a total of eight separate points of information which were sought from the petitioner department, the grievance of the applicant before the CIC was limited viz. partial supply of Notesheet pertaining to information sought at serial no. 7 and non-supply of information sought under serial no.4.
16. It is evident that most of the information that was sought by the applicant pertaining to his premature repatriation from UIDAI, was duly supplied to him in a time-bound manner. The petitioner's appeal before the CIC was confined only to denial of information sought vide serial nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application.
17. Prima facie, it is untenable to conclude that the CPIO and the FAA acted malafide with a view to cause prejudice to the applicant. This is belied by the fact that only a portion of the information sought by the RTI application was withheld/not supplied. The same was also predicated with a view of the FAA as regards applicability of Section 8(h) of the RTI Act
18. The power conferred by CIC under Section 20 of the RTI Act (to impose penalties) is to be exercised judicially and not mechanically. The same cannot be ipso facto invoked in every case where requisite information has not been supplied. It may be that in a particular case, denial of information is on account of misconceived application of the exemption/s provided for under Section 8 of the RTI Act, however, that by itself would not lead to an inference of malafides so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. In this regard reference is apposite to the view. expressed by the coordinate Page 11 of 46 Bench of this Court in Registrar of Companies and Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Anr, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3263. The same reads as under:
"61. Even if it were to be attained for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the Information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives Incorrect, Incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension In those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure au them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the Institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
19. In the circumstances, it is incumbent on CIC to consider the attendant facts and circumstances to assess whether the conduct of the CPIO/FAA is egregious so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
20. A representation/application in this regard has already been submitted by the petitioner on 25.06.2024. In the circumstances, it would be apposite if the said application is duly considered and decided by the CIC taking into account the facts and circumstances as highlighted therein. It is directed accordingly. The CIC is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.
21. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application/s are also disposed of."
Page 12 of 46IX. The instant matter is being pursued by the Commission in compliance with the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3019/2025 dated 17.04.2025, to dispose of the representation filed by the Respondent Public Authority dated 25.06.2024, which resulted in an out of turn basis hearing by overriding the matters awaiting listing in due course on their turn.
X. The issue under consideration is a representation filed by the Respondent Public Authority through its Director (HR) dated 25.06.2024 on the official letterhead in the matter signed by Shri Piyush Chand Gupta in his official capacity. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"The undersigned as Respondent in the above captioned case namely Piyush Chand Gupta (then CPIO, UIDAI) seeks modification of the Final Order dated 24.05.2024 made available with him on 06.06.2024 to the extent that mala- fide has held to have been established on the part of CPIO and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed under Section 20(1) of RTI, Act on the following grounds inter alia:
1. The instant Application does not seek to question/challenge the findings of this Hon'ble Commission but seeks modification to the limited extent of the finding of this Hon'ble Commission that mala-fide has held to have been established on the part of CPIO and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed under Section 20(1) of RTI, Act on the below mentioned grounds:
Grounds seeking modification of Final Order dated 23.05.2024 A. THE FINDING OF MALA-FIDE ESTABLISHED ON THE PART OF CPIO SUFFERS FROM ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD
(i) It is an admitted position that the RTI Appellant had made 8 (eight) RTI queries in his RTI Application dated 22.08.2022 received with the CPIO, UIDAI on 25.08.2022 and the appellant was fully satisfied with 6 (six) replies given by the CPIO, UIDAI vide RTI Reply dated 21.09.2022. This is itself evidence of the bona fides of the then CPIO, UIDAI and then FAA, UIDAI who were committed to provide all admissible information under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) It is an admitted position that RTI appellant was aggrieved by non-supply of information sought for in RTI query point no. 4 and partial information provided qua RTI Query point no.7.
The said RTI queries and CPIO's reply to the same stand reproduced as under:
Point no. information Sought CPIO, UIDAI's
reply
4 Furnish certified Copy of Report information
communicated to the UlDAl, HQ, New Delhi by cannot be
the DDG, UlDAl, Regional Office Ranchi who provided as per is/were Reporting/Controlling Authority w.r.t. Section 8(1Xh) of Page 13 of 46 Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu IFS (Kerala- the RTI Act.
2005), ADG/Director, for breach of any regulation of the Authority or negligence, inefficiency in discharge of the assigned duties or violations of any of the provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and/or Unique identification Authority of India (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 2O2O during the period of his working at UIDAI w.e.f. 01.11 .2018 till date 7 Furnish certified copy of Note Sheet of the file Copy of notesheet and letter/Office Memorandum, of the UIDAI and letter to DoPT HQ, New Delhi communicated, if any, as Per dated 14.07 .2022 procedure laid down by the DoPT i.r.o. the are attached as Officers of All India Services working under the Annexure 'E' & 'F' Government of India and Organizations under respectively. the Government of India and recommending with Administrative Exigencies/grounds for curtailment of deputation tenure and pre-
mature repatriation of the services of Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu IFS (Kerala2005) ADG/Director, UIDAI Regional Office, Ranchi
(iii) With respect to the RTI Query point no.7, the RTI Appellant himself sought information regarding the "curtailment of deputation tenure and pre mature repatriation"[Emphasis supplied/. The reply provided to the RTI appellant in terms of copies of note sheet and letter to DOPT specifically cover both the aspects, as asked for in the RTI application.
(a) lt is necessary to place on record that the note sheet provided to the RTI Application was given from note sheet no. 17 onwards since the notings pertaining to the RT! Appellant's "curtailment of deputation tenure and pre mature repatiation" were fully dealt with from that note Sheet number onwards.
(b) The file notings prior to notesheet no.17 had no direct and proximate bearing with the curtailment of deputation tenure and pre-mature repatriation of the RTI Appellant and were not provided to him since the same were never sought for in his RTI Application in the first place. This is itself evidence of lhe bona fides of undersigned as CPIO, UIDAI and of FAA, UIDAI who were committed to provide all admissible information under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 14 of 46(iv) With regard to RTI Query point no.4, a perusal of the RTI reply qua point no. 7 (copy of note sheet from noting no. 17 onwards and letter to DOPT Dated14.07.2022) were already placed on record and provided to RTI appellant which revealed that UIDAI on the basis of non performance of the RTI Appellant as reported by his controlling officer i.e. DDG(RO),Ranchi, had initiated the case lor "curtailment of deputation tenure and pre mature repatriation" and placed it before DOPT for its approval! which is in the nature of a punitive administrative action against the RT! Appellant by UIDAI.
(a) Hence, in terms of the exemption under section 8(1Xh), CPIO came to the conclusion that the information would either impede or may cause reasonable apprehension in taking of an impartial and an unbiased decision by DOpT with regard to "curtailment of deputation tenure and pre mature repatriation" of the RTI Appellant.
b) The entire process of deputation tenure posting of Group A Civil Servants, to be appointed by ACC, necessarily mandates that DoPT, Gol is the nodal agency with regard to appointments through deputation as well as curtailment of deputation tenure/pre mature repatriation of these officers.
(c) Resultantly, till the time DOPT does not formally approve curtailment of deputation tenure/pre mature repatriation of a Group A civil servant (like the RTI Appellant herein), no prejudice whatsoever in terms of stigma/penal consequences/service tenure can be said to be visited upon the said deputationist.
(d) Moreover, in the instant case it is an admitted position that the RTI Appellant served his entire Five year Deputation period between 2018 and ZO23 with UIDAI and did not face any "curtailment of deputation tenure and pre mature repatriation" since UIDAI's proposal to DoPT, Gol remained pending.
ln light of the above, undersigned as CPIO, UIDAI has sought to deny disclosure of information in terms of his interpretation of statutory recognized exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI act for which no personal/professional malafide can be attributable to CPIO whatsoever.
(v) It is the settled law that where more than one views/interpretations with regard to applicability of a statute are possible, the mere fact that the statutory body adopts one of these views to the exclusion of others, he/she can not be held to have acted mala fide.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(a) Onkar Lal Baiai v. ltOl (2003) 2 SCC 673 para 27
(b) Union of India v. Harieet Singh Sandhu (2001) 5 SCC 593 para 42
(c) Siemens Public Communication Network (P) Ltd. v. UOI 2008 16 SCC 215 para 38 and 40 Page 15 of 46
(d) s sethuraman v. R. Venkataraman (2007) 2 SCC 382 para 17
(vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Namit Sharma v. union of India (2013), SCC l4i para gB-1OO categorically held that the functions specified under Section 8(1Xh) of the RTI Act, 2OO5 may be performed by a legally trained mind more efficaciously. The undersigned as Directo(HR) and CPIO UIDA! was from the HR Department and not from the Legal Department of UIDAI and hence cannot be faulted for interpreting Section 8(1Xh) in a way so as to deny information qua RTI query No. 4 made by the RTI Appellant.
(vii) ln fact in his written submission the then CPIO, UIDAI has, in deference to the earlier order dated 11.01 .2024 passed by this Hon'ble Commission directing full disclosure of information w.r.t. RTI Application query No. 4 and 7 acknowledged that his earlier interpretation of non-disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) to be erroneous and given full disclosure which is proof of his bona fides.
(viii) lt is the settled law that for an act to be vitiated by mala fide, the action must be arbitrary and capricious where, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. Io be termed as arbitrary and capricious , the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without reasonable explanation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board (2012) , SCC 157 para 28 B. MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS/FRAUD UTILIZED BY RTI APPELLANT MALAFIDES NOT ESTABLISHED
(i) Misrepresentation of facts/fraud has been adopted by RTI Appellant before this Hon'ble Commission, resulting in imposition of penalty on the undersigned as CPIO, UIDAI which renders the order void-ab-inifo as per the settled principle of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant and under section M of lndian Evidence Act.
(ii) The appellant has misrepresented many facts during the course of seeking the information and also during the personal hearings, like:
(a) It has been submitted by the RTI appellant before this Hon'ble Commission that the then CPIO/FAA in the capacity of incharge of HR matters, had given him (appellant) the additional charge of Patna unit which has been duly recorded in the fina! order dated 23.05.2024 by this Hon'ble Commission.
A. lt is respectfully submitted that the RTl Application has made a false and erroneous submission before this Hon'ble Commission and his act is an attempt to mislead and misguide this Hon'ble Commission.
Page 16 of 46B. The UIDAI Regional Office, Ranchi is a full fledged office of UIDAI which is having its own Head of Office (HOO), who takes the decision regarding the state of affairs under his jurisdiction.
C. The undersigned as Directo(HR) & the then CPIO and FAA, UIDA! were not involved the internal matters of UIDAI Regional Office, Ranchi and no orders were ever issued either by CPIO or by FAA for giving the additional charge of Patna unit to the appellant.
(b) The RTI Appellant has further submitted, falsely and willfully misled this Hon'ble Commission by wrongly submitting that the Controlling Officer who attributed non-performance to the RTI Appellant was not the Controlling Officer for the UIDAI Regional Office at Ranchi but was the controlling officer for Patna Regional Office of UIDAI to which RTI Application was given additional charge.
A. The factual position is that the controlling officer of the RTI appellant was his Controlling Officer for both the Locations i.e. UIDAI Regional Office Ranchi as well as UIDAI Regional Office Patna and was responsible for the state of affairs for both the locations.
B. The Head of Office (HOO) of Regional Office Ranchi, headed by Joint Secretary or equivalent level officer (and the controlling officer of the RTI appellant) has the jurisdiction of three states, namely, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal and hence, exercised full powers and competence to monitoring the performance of all the Directors reporting to him, including the RTI Appellant and to distribute the charge amongst them.
(c)The RTI Appellant has further submitted, falsely and misled this Hon'ble Commission deliberately that then CPIO & FAA UIDAI and Controlling Officer of the RTI Appellant were working in tandem to harass him as he had begun pointing out misdeeds by these three.
A. The undersigned as Directo(HR) and the then CPIO and FAA, UIDA! are discharging their duties with full devotion, sincerity and honesty. B. Such allegations have never been mentioned in his RTI Application as well as First Appeal or otherwise against CPIO/FAA.
C. lt is very clear that this allegation is an afterthought of the RTI appellant to somehow portray himself as a victim and gain the sympathy of this Hon'ble Commission.
D. !t is further falsely fabricated by the appellant that CPIO and FAA had the intention to harm him and also acted on that intention. ln the present case, it is actually undersigned as the then CPIO and FAA, UIDAI are being framed falsely by appellant, just to prove his wrong acts right before the commission.
Page 17 of 46E. Further, undersigned as CPIO have been deprived of opportunity for putting the facts on these false allegations leveled by the appellant with the mala fide intention on his end, reasons of which are best known to him.
(iii) This Hon'ble Commission's kind attention is brought to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in lndian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579 para 23 wherein it has been decided that the burden of establishing mala - fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala - fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility "23. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of ifs powers. While the indirect motive or purpose, or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficulty is not lessened when one has to establish that a person apparently acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting mala fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. lt is not the law that mala fides in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. lf bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. (See S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab.) lt cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. As noted by this Court in R.P. Royappa y. State of T.N., courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration.
(iv) The RTI Appellant has misrepresented before this Hon'ble Commission, hence the Final Order dated 23.05.2024 to the extent it attributes mala fide on the then CPIO & FAA, UIDAI stands vitiated as has been enshrined in the principle behind Section 44 of the Evidence Act. lt is settled law that fraud vitiates every solemn act and the same is rendered non esf and void ab initio in the eyes of law.
a. Ganpatbhai Mahijinhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2008) 12 SCC 353 b. Ranganayakamma v. K.S Prakash (2008) 15 SCC 673 Page 18 of 46 c. Rani Akola Dudhoria v. Gautam Dudhoria (2009) ,3 SCC 569 d. Tanna & Modi v. CIT (2007) 7 SCC 434
(v) Undersigned as CPIO, UIDAI was never provided with a opportunity to present his case against allegations personal bias/mala fide made by the RTI Appellant and recorded by this Hon'ble Commission in the Final order dated 23.05.2024. lt is settled law that Audi alteram Partum [right to be heard] is part of Principles of Natural justice and quasi judicial order denying right to be heard is null and void.
a. R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Narsingh Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] , SCR 335 C. RTI Appellant cannot be entitled to relief beyond pleadings made before CPIO/FAA
(i) It is respectfully submitted that the RTI Appellant could not be entitled to be granted relief beyond what he specifically sought in his application with regard to RTI Query point no. 7.
(ii) He specifically and categorically asked for the copies of note sheet with regard to his curtailment of deputation tenure and premature repatriation, which were provided to him in the first instance itself by the then CPIO, UlDAl.
(iii) lt is settled law that a party must be bound by his pleadings
(a) Ranbir Singh c. Executive Engineer (2011) ,5 SCC 453 para 6-7 D. No actual mala-fide can be attributed to CPIO
(i) No actual mala-fide can be attributed to authorities under the scheme of RTI Act when they seek to deny disclosing information in terms of exemptions statutorily provided under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.
(ii) As stated above where two interpretations of a provision (Section 8(1Xh) of the Act in the present case) can be construed with reasonableness by CPIO/FAA, there cannot be any mala-fide sought to be attributed specially in a case where there is no evidence to demonstrate personal/professional bias exhibited against RTI Appellant at the instance of CPIO, given the fact that RTI appellant was engaged with UIDAI related operations in Ranchi while undersigned as CPIO is discharging functions at UIDAI Head Office in New Delhi.
(iii) Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that file notings cannot be relied to prove and hold that the ultimate decision of the Government is tainted by mala fide.
(a) Jasbir Singh Chhabra y. State of Punjab (2010) 4 SCC 192 para 35 and 37
(iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Namit Sharma v. Union of lndia (2013), SCC 745 para 98-106 categorically held that the functions specified under Section 8(1Xh) of the RT! Act, 2005 may be performed by a legally trained mind more efficaciously. Undersigned as CPIO UIDAI was from the HR Department and not Page 19 of 46 from the Legal Department of UIDAI and hence cannot be faulted for interpreting Section 8(1)(h) in a way so as to deny information qua RTI query No. 4 made by the RTI Appellant.
(v) ln fact in the written submission of undersigned as CPIO UIDAI has, in deference to the earlier order dated 1 1.01 .2024 passed by this Hon'ble Commission directing fu!! disclosure of information w.r.t. RTI Application query No. 4 and 7 has acknowledged that his earlier interpretation of non-disclosure under Section 8(1Xh) to be erroneous and given full disclosure which is proof of his bona fides.
E. RTI Appellant failed to demonstrate anv actual preiudice/loss/damaqe arisinq out of bonafide non-disclosure i. It is also being put on record that although the contents of the confidential letter asked for in point no. 4 were covered in the reply given to RTI Appellant against point no. 7, and also the reply as made available against information sought under point no. 7 was adequate and enough, even to comply with the orders issued by the commission on 1 1.01.2024, all the other information whatsoever was available in the office was also made available to the appellant. This demonstrated the bona fides on the part of undersigned as CPIO UIDAI.
ii. Even this Hon'ble Commission has recorded that the RTI/Appellant is satisfied with the supplied information and the earlier order of this Hon'ble Commission dated 11.01.2024 stood complied with.
iii. As far as delay of supplying explicit information against point no. 4 and partial expticit information against point no.7, and damage to the appellant resultantly as claimed by him, it is put on record that the RTI Appellant had already initiated the action, as deemed fit to him based on the information supplied to him dated 21.09.2022 as the given information was adequate and enough and no damages resulted to him, as has been claimed falsely by the appellant.
iv. The RTI Appellant has not been visited with any disciplinary/penal consequences viz "curtailment of deputation tenure and pre mature repatriation" in connection with which the RTI query was made by him. F. Parity Claimed with Final order dated 17.05.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Commission - Similar case pertaining to the same parties - No penalty given i. ln a similar case, where same RTI appellant has also approached CIC with his second appeal,( Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAll2O23l6OO694), the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi has disposed off this second appeal with the directions to CPIO to forward a copy of his latest written submission to the appellant and to submit a compliance report in this regard before the commission subsequently(Copy of CIC order enclosed).
Page 20 of 46ii. Hon'ble CIC has further declared that no further intervention of the commission is required in the matter.
iii. It is hereby submitted that both the case are identical in nature but in one case ( before Hon'ble CIC), case has been disposed off with the directions to forward a copy of latest written submission of CPIO to the appellant and to submit a compliance report in this regard before the commission while in another case ( viz. the present case) mala fide has been established on part of CPIO and FAA and penalty has been imposed as per section 20(1) of RTI Act. iv. Doctrine of parity along with principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution have, therefore, been violated in the present case.
v. It is also submitted that in other three appeals also filed by the same appellant, in which CPIO/FAA were the officers of Regional Office, Ranchi, Hon'ble CIC has taken the similar views and passed the similar orders in line with the second appeal no. CIC/U1DA1120231600694, as mentioned above. G. lt is also necessary to put on record that the entire RT! Application was filed to destroy the smooth Administrative functions of personne! with UIDAI and to put the pressure and to hinder the process initiated by UIDA! for the curtailment of deputation tenure and pre mature repatriation of the RTI Appellant when admittedly the nodal agency for curtailment of deputation tenure and pre mature repatriation is DOPT before which UIDAI had put to notice its notings and correspondences. lt is also a fact that no bias or prejudice of CPIO/FAA has been established/ done against RTI appellant. Further, the appellant has completed his normal deputation in UIDAI on 31 10.2023 and thus relieved from UIDAI in a normal course of proceedings. lt is, in fact, undersigned as CPIO in the present case who will suffer by this instant decision of the commission, both in terms of mental stigma and in monetary terms.Further, this decision will cause grave harm to the services of undersigned as CPIO and irreparable loss to my reputation. ln view of the facts and submissions put forth as above before the Hon'ble ClC, principles of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit are invoked as no prejudice/harm/damage has been done against RTI appellant either by undersigned as CPIO or by FAA and while on the other side, it is undersigned as CPIO who is the real sufferer, mentally as well as monetarily by the present decision.
Principle of Parens Patriae is also invoked in the present case as two different types of orders have been pronounced on the similar cases. PRAYER ln the light of the above facts and submissions, it is prayed to kindly revoke the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed in as such as no mala fide whatsoever is Page 21 of 46 forthcoming and in another similar case, Hon'ble CIC has not held the intent of undersigned as CPIO mala fide.
It is further prayed to kindly put the orders dated 24.05.2024, stayed, till the final disposal of my prayer."
XI. In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Commission issued a hearing notice dated 02.06.2025 to the Applicant organization in the W.P. (C) No. 3019/2025 through its CEO and the Respondents concerned in the RTI Second Appeal in CIC, namely:
(i) Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Director (HR)
(ii) Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, deemed PIO and the then FAA.
(iii) Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar, CEO/UIDAI.
Appellant was also given an opportunity of being heard.
XII. The Registry of this Bench had sought comments from the Respondents concerned in the instant matter. It is noted that none of the above Respondents concerned has provided their comments to the Bench. The then CPIO and deemed CPIO who were penalized by the CIC chose not to file their comments. However, Shri Jyotiranjan Moharana, CPIO-cum- Director, in compliance with the notice of the Commission, provided the following reply dated 19.06.2025:
"An application dated 22.08.2022 was filed by Sh. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu (hereinafter the appellant") under Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act'). Director, HR, UIDAI Head Office ('CPIO') furnished reply on 21.09.2022 for the aforesaid application. The appellant filed the first appeal on 17.10.2022 with regard to reply dated 21.09.2022 given by CPIO. The first appellate authority did not find merit in the first appeal and agreed with the response of CPIO dated 21.09.2022, the first appeal was disposed off vide letter dated 14.11.2022. Thereafter, the Second Appeal was filed by the appellant on 26.12.2022 under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner.
2 Subsequently, a notice dated 01.12.2023 was issued by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to the CPIO and FAA for hearing on 02.01.2024. After the aforesaid hearing, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner passed an order dated 11.01.2024 directing the CPIO (Mr. Piyush Chand) and FAA (Mr. Atul Kumar Chaudhary) to show-cause as to why maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon them. Fide the said Page 22 of 46 order, the CPIO and FAA were also directed to furnish information pertaining to serial no(s) 4 und 7 of the RTI application to the applicant within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the incumbent CPIO (Ms. Revathi Suresh Kumar) vide communication dated 30.01.2024, furnished the applicant with the requisite information.
4 Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 24.05.2024, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each on the said CPIO and FAA under the provisions of Section 20(1) of RTI Act, citing the action of CPIO and FAA as mala fide.
5. Being aggrieved from the order dated 24.05.2024 the CPIO (Mr. Piyush Chand) and FAA (Mr. Atul Kumar Chaudhary) filed a representation/application dated 25.06.2024 for modification of the above-
mentioned impugned order.
6. Though the aforesaid representation was filed by the CPIO and FAA however, in compliance with the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, under protest, the CPIO and FAA, deposited Rs. 10,000/- each. The compliance of the said order was duly informed to the concerned authority by CPIO and FAA vide letter dated 12.07.2024.
7. Aggrieved by the order of Hon'ble information Commissioner dated 24.05.2024 und also for not considering the representations of the respondents dated 25.06.2024, a Writ Petition (W.P. (C) No.3019/2025) was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the order bearing CIC/NITIA/A/2022-669319 dated 24.05.2024 passed by Central Information Commission
8. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after hearing the submissions of the Counsel for the respondent disposed off the said writ petition vide its order dated 17.04.2025 observing as under:
15. It is noticed that out of a total of eight separate points of information which were sought from the petitioner department, the grievance of the applicant before the CIC was limited viz partial supply of Notesheet pertaining to information sought at serial no.7 and non-supply of information sought under serial no. 4
16. It is evident that most of the information that was sought by the applicant pertaining to his premature repatriation from UIDAI, was duly supplied to him in a time-bound manner. The petitioner's appeal before the CIC was confined only to denial of information sought vide serial nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application.
17. Prima facie, it is untenable to conclude that the CPIO and the EAA acted malafide with a view to cause prejudice to the applicant. This is belied by the Page 23 of 46 fact that only a portion of the information sought by the RTI application was withheld/not supplied. The same was also predicated with a view of the FAA as regards applicability of Section 8(h) of the RTI Act
18. The power conferred by CIC under Section 20 of the RTI Act.2015 to impose penalties) is to be exercised judicially and not mechanically. The same cannot be ipso facto invoked in every case where requisite information has not been supplied. It may be that in a particular case, denial of information is on account of misconceived application of the exemption's provided for under Section 8 of the RTI Act, however, that by itself would not lead to an inference of malafides so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20-of the RTI Act.
In this regard reference is apposite to the view expressed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Registrar of Companies and Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Anr, 2012 SCC DeLine Del 3263. Same read as under:
61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 650 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the atelier reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature hay cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct. Le where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or denied the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC start imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties wider the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decision by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. I may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute.
19. In the circumstances, it is incumbent on CIC to consider the attendant facts and circumstances to assess whether the conduct of the CPIO/FAA x egregious so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act Page 24 of 46
20. A representation/application in this regard has already been submitted by the petitioner on 23.06.2024. In the circumstances, it would be apposite if the said application is duly considered and decided by the CIC taking into account the facts and circumstances as highlighted therein. It is directed accordingly.
The CIC is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible
9. In the light of the above facts and submissions, it is respectfully prayed to kindly decide the representations filed by the CPIO & FAA dated 25.6.2024 seeking modification of order dated 24.05.2024 and request to revoke the penalty of Rs.10,000/-each on CPIO and FAA as there was no malafide on the part of the CPIO & FAA as also observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further, the said penalty of Rs. 10,000/-each (Rs 20,000/) imposed on CPIO & FAA may please he directed to be released to the respondents."
Relevant facts emerged during hearing on 26.06.2025:
The following were present:-
Respondents: Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, FAA-cum-Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 1 along with Shri Jyotiranjan Moharana, CPIO-cum-Director (HR) and Shri Vipin Jai, Advocate, attended the hearing in person.
None appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 namely Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA and Respondent No. 3 CEO/UIDAI namely Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar.
Appellant: Present through VC.
XIII. The Appellant stated that Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA, have deliberately suppressed the information under the garb of Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. When the matter reached the CIC, and the Respondent could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the exemptions claimed by both of them under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, their mala fide intent not only came to light but also was established through the records because they could not produce a single document to sustain their claiming exemption at the relevant time. It is only after the directions passed by the CIC along with the SCN that they have provided the information but after a delay of more than one and half years from the date of RTI Application depriving him of seeking judicial remedy at the relevant time.
Page 25 of 46XIV. Shri Vipin Jai, Advocate, appearing on behalf of UIDAI, stated that in compliance with the previous direction dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Commission, Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA, have paid the penalty amount but the same has been paid under protest and they have given their written submissions to the Commission in this regard on 12.07.2024. He asked the Bench to decide their representation dated 25.06.2024, seeking modification of the Final Order dated 24.05.2024, passed by the Commission and further requesting the Commission to revoke the penalty imposed on the erring the then CPIO and FAA. He further submitted that in the instant proceedings, the Commission has to only decide their representation and issuing hearing notice to the Appellant is totally uncalled for.
XV. The Commission interjected and remarked that issuing a hearing notice to both the parties is a crucial aspect of ensuring fairness and transparency in quasi-judicial and judicial proceedings. If one party is not given a fair and equal opportunity to present their case before the Commission, it would cause prejudice and bias, which is against the due process of law. Appellant has not assailed the decision of the Bench as he was satisfied with the same and now considering any representation against the penalty in the absence of the Appellant would outrightly be a manipulation at his back which will amount to compromising Appellant's right to seek judicial intervention.
XVI. Both the parties sought two weeks' time to file additional written submissions, and the Bench acceded to their request.
XVII. After conclusion of the hearing, a written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 02.07.2025, with a copy sent to the Respondent. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"1. That, it is stated and submitted that actions of the CPIO (Shri Piyush Chand Gupta) and FAA (Shri Atul Kumar Choudhary) who happened to be the Director and Deputy Director General respectively of the Human Resource Division of the Respondents' Public Office, Govt. of India, UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi have had been biased, arbitrary and malicious in facts and Law and misleading which caused prejudiced to the applicant (Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu).
2. That the respondents CPIO and FAA through their administrative actions whereby leveled baseless allegations of non-performance and recommended Page 26 of 46 and received the approval of competent authority for premature repatriation of the applicant and subsequently while discharging the entrusted responsibilities under RTI Act, concealed/denied the information by admittedly wrongly invoking the Sec. 8(1)(h) w.r.t. query no. 4 and knowingly and willfully suppresed the complete information w.r.t. query no.7.
3. That, the applicant preferred RTI application, dated-22.08.2022 before the CPIO, UIDAI, Head Quarter, New Delhi and sought certain information in connection with his service on deputation with the Govt. of India, UIDAI. That the CPIO in reply to RTI query No. 7, partially furnished documents marked as Annexure "E" and "F". From the said Annexure "E" the applicant for the first time came to know, that action had been initiated and completed at UIDAI HQ, HR Division as per the report of DDG, RO, Ranchi and further, it also transpired that, DDG, RO Ranchi vide email dated-21.06.2022 had intimated in connection thereof that suitable Advisory had also been issued to Shri. KDP Sahu, the Applicant herein. Also for the first time, the applicant from para 2-4 of the said Annexure "F" came to know that on the basis of holistic review of his performance, UIDAI, HR Division with the approval of competent authority decided to prematurely repatriate his services and vide it's letter, dated-
14.07.2022 requested DoP&T for issuance of necessary relieving orders for premature repatriation of Shri KDP Sahu, Director, UIDAI, RO Ranchi.
The RTI information (Annex.-E), UIDAI Note sheet and (Annex.-F), letter dated-
14. 07. 2022 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-1A &1B.
4. That, it is submitted that the extant rules/guidelines of the Govt. of India, DoPT, provisions Vigilance considerations are crucial in the premature repatriation of All India Services (AIS) officers on deputation. Further, repatriation may also occur due to inadequate performance, lack of integrity, or other serious grounds.
5. That, the period preceding/intervening to initiation of action by the Human Resource Division of UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi, headed by Shri Atul Kumar Choudhary, DDG (HR) and FAA in the instant case, w.r.t. purported reported non-performance of the Applicant, in the Performance appraisal part of APAR for Assessment Year-2021-22, the then DDG, UIDAI, RO, Ranchi, who had keenly observed Applicant's conduct since his joining at UIDAI w.e.f. 01.11.2018, through pen picture had reported that "The Officer is very sincere, hardworking and bears an amicable personality. He performed his assigned duties with dedication and discipline. He looked after the state of Jharkhand for all Aadhaar related works and achieved his targets well on time. For his Page 27 of 46 cool and sober nature, he can be depended upon in times of emergency or crisis. He has a very good administrative experience and has deep knowledge about the Government rules and regulations. During the period, he did exemplary job in opening many model Aadhaar Sewa Kendras (ASKs) in the state of Jharkhand by physically visiting the sites and handholding in technical terms. His dedication to work makes him an asset to the organization."
And the Certification in the Vigilance Certificate, dated-14.09.2022 of the UIDAI, RO, Ranchi (which was issued in immediate succeeding period to UIDAI recommendation, dated-14.07.2022 to DoPT for issuance of order for premature repatriation)- that... "no vigilance case or disciplinary proceedings is either pending or being contemplated during his deputation tenure i.e. from 01.11.2018 to till date at UIDAI,RO, Ranchi...).
The relevant part of pen picture performance appraisal of PAR (2021-22) and Vigilance Certificate, dated-14.09.2022 is enclosed herewith and Marked as Annexure-2A & 2B.
6. That, the CPIO's RTI information, dated-21.09.2022 that "No such document available with UIDAI, HQ" w.r.t. applicant's query no. 5 (Annexue-3A) and the Pen picture performance appraisal by the then reporting officer (DDG, Ranchi) in PAR (2021-22) and vigilance certificate, dated-14.09.2022 (Annexure- 2A82B) clearly established the fact that there have had been "No breach"
whatsoever in applicant's conduct / performance while discharging the assigned duties and responsibilities and hence, warranted "no administrative action against him whatsoever", leave alone the Extreme Coercive action of pre-mature repatriation, which jeopardised the rights / rehabilitation of disabled children of the Applicant. Hence, the respondents' administrative action against the applicant was malicious in lights of the extant quidelines of DOPT.
7. That the submissions of the Respondents in the instant written submission and before the Hon'ble High Court that the information sought by the applicant was duly supplied to him in a time-bound manner and appeal before the CIC confined only to denial of information sought vide sl. No. 4 and 7 of the RTI application is misconceived, motivated and fictitious in light of applicant's factual submission before the Hon'ble CIC under sub para of Para 5 of Second Appeal Application dated-26.12.2022, which revealed that out of 8 (Eight) queries, information pertaining to 7 (Seven) queries mentioned in Sl. No. 1,2,3,4,6,7 and 8 of the RTI application, dated-22.08.2022 had not been satisfactorily attended and or furnished by Shri. Piyush Chand Gupta, Director Page 28 of 46 (HR) & CPIO, HQ, New Delhi vide his RTI Reply, dated-21.09.2022, as such being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the applicant preferred 1st Appeal on- 17.10.2022. The said 1st Appeal had been disposed of by Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Director General & FAA, vide his1st Appeal Reply dated- 14.11.2022 and simply endorsed the reply given by the CPIO in cryptic and non-speaking manner. The CPIO RTI Reply, dated-21.09.2022 and First Appeal Reply. dated-14.11.2022 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-3A & 3B.
8. That the sought information at Sl. No. 4 and 7 formed the "Heart /CORE" of the applicant's RTI Application, dated-22.08.2022 and the information was very much required by the applicant for exercising his proper administrative/ legal rights/ remedy, in light of the maliciously arbitrary and biased action of the respondents authority (especially of CPIO/FAA) sans any basis whatsoever (aforesaid para-5/6 and Annexure-2A & 2B), for recommending premature repatriation of the Applicant. And, hence, the appeal before the Hon'ble CIC limited only to partial supply of Notesheet pertaining to information sought at sl.no. 7 and non-supply of information sought under sl.no. 4, taking unjustified exemption under sec. 8(h) of the RTI Act.
9. That the submission of the respondents (CPIO/FAA) that error committed in partial furnishing the information w.r.t. query no. 7 and not furnishing the information w.r.t. query no. 4 by taking exemption under section 8(1)(h) was a inadvertent, is misconceived and motivated with sole intention of misleading the Appellate Authorities (CIC/High Court) and evade the penal provisions of the RTI Act.
10. That, in order to know the veracity of such statement /submission in partially furnished UIDAI note-sheet and letter dated-14.07.2022 to DoPT w.r.t. query no. 7 of RTI Application, dated-22.08.2022 (Annexure-1A & 1B), another RTI Application, dated-27.10.2022 was filed before the same public information authority (CPIO-Sh. Piyush Chand Gupta) and being dissatisfied with his RTI reply 23.11.2022, appealed before FAA (Sh. Atul Kumar Chaudhary). In reply thereof, arbitrarily denied to furnish information citing exception of Section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005 in mechanical manner without assigning any material reasons, which was also upheld by the Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, DDG (HR Div) & FAA. UIDAI Head Quarter, New Delhi. The said replies were challenged before the Hon'ble CIC-File No.- CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/600694, dated-04.01.2023 and notice was issued on 01.05.2024 for scheduled hearing of second appeal held on 17.05.2024. The Page 29 of 46 CPIO RTI Reply, dated-23.11.2022 and First Appeal Reply. dated-22.12.2022 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-4A & 4B.
11. That, a comparative study /perusal of the Respondents' CPIO RTI Reply, dated-23.11.2022, FAA Appeal Reply, dated-22.12.2022 (Annexure 4A&4B) qua- CPIO RTI Reply dated-21.09.2022 and FAA Appeal Reply, dated- 14.11.2022 (Annexure-3A&3B) would made it evident that the respondents CPIO, Shri Piyush Chand Gupta knowingly and wilfully concealed /suppressed the information already in his possession and denied to furnish the information, by merely citing exception of Section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005 mechanically without assigning any material reasons, which was also upheld by the Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, DDG (HR Div) & FAA, UIDAI Head Quarter, New Delhi by concealing/ suppressing the information in the pretext of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, by misquoting discussion portion of judgement beyond the judicial findings and thereby assigning baseless and whimsical explanation. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) application opted arbitrarily and maliciously as the haven for dodging demands for information.
12. That it is relevant to mention herein, that the respondents furnished desired information of sl. No. 4 & 7 of RTI Application, dated-22.08.2022 after nearly 18 months on 30.01.2024, that too, in compliance of the direction of CIC Order dated-11.01.2024 and w.r.t. RTI Application, dated-27.10.2022, the sought information was furnished on 13.05.2024/14.05.2024 after a lapse of 19 months, when the appeal before CIC was scheduled for hearing on 17.05.2024.
The CPIO RTI Reply, dated-30.01.2024 addressed to Applicant and Revised RTI reply, dated-14.05.2024 addressed to CIC is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-5A & 5B.
13. That the perusal of revised information, dated-14.05.2024 furnished i.r.o. RTI Application, dated-27.10.2022, that "as per record, no such document is available at UIDAI HO" i.r.o. of sought information at Query No.-VIII and XV (Annexure-5B), revealed the baseless, biased and misleading file notings of FAA / DDG (HR) (note#20, suitable advisory was issued, but no visible improvement in performance) and in it's letter 14.07.2022, that Holistic review of performance conducted and decided to prematurely repatriate the applicant (Annexure-1A & 18), which also manifests the malicious intention of the respondents to keep the applicant in dark with ulterior motive of willfully concealing/ suppressing the information in the pretext of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act and/ or partial disclosure of information.
Page 30 of 4614. That, this is settled position in law that the exemption under section 8(1)
(h) is not absolute and requires a demonstration that disclosure would actually hamper an ongoing investigation, Public interest considerations can also weigh in favor of disclosure, even if an investigation is ongoing.
15. That, the respondents, while discharging the Administrative responsibilities were very well aware that there was No investigation whatsoever, initiated/ pending against the applicant nor there was any purported non-performance in discharge of his duties. However, initiated and concluded the extreme steps of Applicant's premature repatriation. Subsequently, while discharging the entrusted responsibilities of the RTI Act, the respondents with malafide intention and ulterior motive of precluding the applicant from exercising his fundamental and natural rights to know the basis of initiation and conclusion of coercive measures of premature repatriation taken against him, knowingly denied/suppressed the sought information, which was admittedly not covered under exemption provisioned under Sec. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which caused prejudice to the applicant's right to take proper administrative/legal remedy and also casted Stigma on his unblemished career of Public servant (Annexure- 2A & 2B) in light of the baseless and biased action of the authority (Annexure- 1B).
Under the circumstances, it is, therefore, humbly prayed that for the end of justice, your honour may be pleased to accept the aforesaid facts and to submissions of the preceding paragraphs and be pleased "Dismiss the Respondents' Representation, dated-25.06.2024 and Written submission, dated- NIL, which have been heard on 26.06.2025 with costs."
XVIII. After conclusion of the hearing, a written submission has been received from Shri Jyotiranjan Moharana, CPIO-cum-Director, vide letter dated 09.07.2025, with a copy sent to the Appellant. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"1. That we are in receipt of written submissions filed by the Appellant dated 02.07.2025.
2. That aggrieved by the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the this Hon'ble Information Commissioner whereby a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (each) was imposed on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and First Appellate Authority (FAA), UIDAI under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"), and non disposal of the representations of CPIO and FAA, UIDAI of dated 25.06.2024 for modification of the above-mentioned impugned order, Page 31 of 46 the respondents preferred a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) NO.3019 of 2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
3. That after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the respondents the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition vide its judgement dated 17.04.2025 observed in para 17 of the said judgement that "Prima facie, it is untenable to conclude that the CPIO and the FAA acted malafide with a view to cause prejudice to the applicant. This is belied by the fact that only a portion of the information sought by the RTI application was withheld/not supplied. The same was also predicated with a view of the FAA as regards applicability of Section 8(h) of the RTI Act.
4. That in para 18 the Hon'ble High court of Delhi further observed that "The power conferred by CIC under Section 20 of the RTI Act (to impose penalties) is to be exercised judicially and not mechanically. The same cannot be ipso facto invoked in every case where requisite information has not been supplied. It may be that in a particular case, denial of information is on account of misconceived application of the exemption/s provided for under Section 8 of the RTI Act, however, that by itself would not lead to an inference of malafides so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
5. That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that a representation/application against imposition of penalty against CPIO and FAA has already been filed by the petitioner/respondent on 25.06.2024.
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi finally directed this Hon'ble Commission that the said application is duly considered taking into account the facts and circumstances as highlighted in the judgement dated 17.04.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and requested this Hon'ble Commission to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.
7. That though as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this Hon'ble Commission was to decide the representation/application filed by the respondents, however, a Notice dated 02.06.2025 was received by the respondents according to which the parties were required to file reply and appear before this Hon'ble Commission on 26.06.2025.
8. The respondents duly filed their reply and appeared before this Hon'ble Commission on 26.06.2025. On that date, arguments were addressed by the Respondents apprising this Hon'ble Commission about the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and requested to recall the order of imposition of Page 32 of 46 penalty on CPIO and FAA and release of Rs.20,000/-deposited by the respondents under protest.
9. The Appellant neither filed any written submission nor submitted any response of the written submissions made by CPIO, UIDAI, which had been sent to him on Dt.19.06.2025 and appeared virtually on 26.06.2025 and addressed his arguments. However, this Hon'ble Commission allowed one week's time to the Appellant to file written submissions.
10. In view of this, the respondents are filing the present written submissions with a request to recall the order of imposition of penalty on CPIO and FAA and release of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the respondents under protest.
11. BRIEF FACTS An application dated 22.08.2022 was filed by Sh. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu (hereinafter 'the appellant') under Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act'). Director, HR, UIDAI Head Office ('CPIO') furnished reply on 21.09.2022 for the aforesaid application. The appellant filed the first appeal on 17.10.2022 with regard to reply dated 21.09.2022 given by CPIO. The first appellate authority did not find merit in the first appeal and agreed with the response of CPIO dated 21.09.2022, the first appeal was disposed off vide letter dated 14.11.2022. Thereafter, the Second Appeal was filed by the appellant on 26.12.2022 under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner.
2. Subsequently, a notice dated 01.12.2023 was issued by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to the CPIO and FAA for hearing on 02.01.2024. After the aforesaid hearing, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner passed an order dated 11.01.2024 directing the CPIO (Mr. Piyush Chand) and FAA (Mr. Atul Kumar Chaudhary) to show-cause as to why maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon them. Vide the said order, the CPIO and FAA were also directed to furnish information pertaining to serial no(s).4 and 7 of the RTI application to the applicant within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the incumbent CPIO (Ms. Revathi Suresh Kumar) vide communication dated 30.01.2024, furnished the applicant with the requisite information.
4. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 24.05.2024, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each on the said Page 33 of 46 CPIO and FAA under the provisions of Section 20(1) of RTI Act, citing the action of CPIO and FAA as mala fide.
5. Being aggrieved from the order dated 24.05.2024 the CPIO (Mr. Piyush Chand) and FAA (Mr. Atul Kumar Chaudhary) filed a representation/application dated 25.06.2024 for modification of the above-
mentioned impugned order.
6. Though the aforesaid representation was filed by the CPIO and FAA; however, in compliance with the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, under protest, the CPIO and FAA, deposited Rs.10,000/- each. The compliance of the said order was duly informed to the concerned authority by CPIO and FAA vide letter dated 12.07.2024.
7. Aggrieved by the order of Hon'ble Information Commissioner dated 24.05.2024 and also for not considering the representations of the respondents dated 25.06.2024, a Writ Petition (W.P. (C) No.3019/2025) was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the order bearing CIC/NITIA/A/2022/669319 dated 24.05.2024 passed by Central Information Commission.
8. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after hearing the submissions of the Counsel for the respondent disposed of the said writ petition vide its order dated 17.04.2025 observing as under:
"...15. It is noticed that out of a total of eight separate points of information which were sought from the petitioner department, the grievance of the applicant before the CIC was limited viz. partial supply of Notesheet pertaining to information sought at serial no. 7 and non-supply of information sought under serial no.4.
16. It is evident that most of the information that was sought by the applicant pertaining to his premature repatriation from UIDAI, was duly supplied to him in a time-bound manner. The petitioner's appeal before the CIC was confined only to denial of information sought vide serial nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application.
17. Prima facie, it is untenable to conclude that the CPIO and the FAA acted malafide with a view to cause prejudice to the applicant. This is belied by the fact that only a portion of the information sought by the RTI application was withheld/not supplied. The same was also predicated with a view of the FAA as regards applicability of Section 8(h) of the RTI Act.Page 34 of 46
18. The power conferred by CIC under Section 20 of the RTI Act,2005 (to impose penalties) is to be exercised judicially and not mechanically. The same cannot be ipso facto invoked in every case where requisite information has not been supplied. It may be that in a particular case, denial of information is on account of misconceived application of the exemption/s provided for under Section 8 of the RTI Act, however, that by itself would not lead to an inference of malafides so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. In this regard reference is apposite to the view expressed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Registrar of Companies and Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Anr, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3263. Same read as under:
"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, оr knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."Page 35 of 46
19. In the circumstances, it is incumbent on CIC to consider the attendant facts and circumstances to assess whether the conduct of the CPIO/FAA is egregious so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
20. A representation/application in this regard has already been submitted by the petitioner on 25.06.2024. In the circumstances, it would be apposite if the said application is duly considered and decided by the CIC taking into account the facts and circumstances as highlighted therein. It is directed accordingly. The CIC is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible."
12. The written submission of the appellant Dt.02.07.2025 does not contain any new facts and all the issues raised therein have already been deliberated before present Hon'ble Information Commissioner earlier and hence, do not change any status of facts and submissions already available with the present Hon'ble Information Commissioner.
13. In the light of the above facts and submissions, it is respectfully prayed to kindly decide the representations filed by the CPIO & FAA dated 25.6.2024 seeking modification of order dated 24.05.2024 and request to revoke the penalty of Rs.10,000/- each on CPIO and FAA as there was no malafide on the part of the CPIO & FAA as also observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further, the said penalty of Rs.10,000/- each (Rs.20,000/) imposed on CPIO & FAA may please be directed to be released to the respondents."
Observations:
XIX. The Commission notes that Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA, in written submissions dated 12.07.2024 and the oral submission made by their counsel during the hearing, has informed the Bench that they have paid the penalty under protest. The Commission remarked on the Respondent that no proof has been placed on record which corroborates that they have paid the penalty under protest. Simply writing a letter that they have paid the penalty under protest is invalid. Accordingly, their submission to this effect becomes inadmissible.
XX. The Commission also observes that vide order dated 24.05.2024, a penalty amounting to Rs. 10,000/- each was imposed on the individuals, namely Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA and not on the Respondent Public Authority i.e. UIDAI. However, instead of the penalized individuals approaching the Hon'ble High Court in their individual capacities, the organization i.e. Page 36 of 46 UIDAI filed the Writ in the Hon'ble High Court challenging the order of CIC. Thus, the party in the Writ Petition WP (C) No. 3019/2025, is the Respondent Public Authority i.e. UIDAI and not the penalized individuals. Accordingly, the Commission in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, issued hearing notice dated 02.06.2025, to the Respondents concerned, namely, (i) Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO -cum -Director (HR); (ii) Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, deemed PIO- cum-the then FAA; and (iii) Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar, CEO/UIDAI, asking for their comments. None of the Respondents concerned provided any written explanation to the Bench and has very smartly asked the incumbent CPIO Shri Jyotiranjan Moharana, CPIO-cum-Director to file written submission to the Bench.
XXI. It is also pertinent to mention that Respondent No. 2 and 3 i.e. Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA and Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar, CEO/UIDAI, have abstained themselves from appearing in the hearing before the Commission.
XXII. It is also noted that the averred penalty amount was ordered to be deducted from the salaries of each of the two i.e. Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA, by the Respondent Public Authority. However, Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA, vide letter dated 12.07.2024 have uploaded a copy of two Demand Drafts bearing No. '502609' and '502610', wherein it is noted that both the DDs' have been purchased in the individual capacity by Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and not by Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary for his own part. Thus, the Respondent Public Authority failed to recover the penalty amount from the respective salaries of penalized officers. All these observations prima facie indicate that something is amiss. There clearly is an attempt to pay the penalty amount from sources other than salary which is a serious deviation from the established official procedure given in the CIC decision and subversion of recovering the penalty from salary. Unfortunately, the Respondent Public Authority has been made party to such devious machinations by apparent misuse of official position by one of them. The penalty was therefore deservedly imposed on them.
Page 37 of 46XXIII. As far as the role of the Respondent Organization is concerned, it was limited to deducting the penalty amount from the 'SALARY/PENSION' of the penalized officers in TWO EQUAL INSTALMENTS. The Orders of CIC in matter of monetary penalty are always specific with the objective of bringing the factum of penalty on record. The Central Information Commission (CIC) follows a specific procedure when imposing penalties on Public Information Officers (PIOs) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CIC in its various previous orders have established precedents regarding deposit of penalty amounts like in case file No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000594, decided on 08.01.2015, passed following order:
"In view of the above, the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs 15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand only) u/s 20(1) on Shri A.K.Meena, EE(B)/CPIO, West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, and a penalty of Rs 10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) on Shri D.P.Bhardwaj, AE(B)/APIO, West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation for violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The amount of Rs 15,000 will be deducted from the salary of Shri A.K.Meena, EE(B)/CPIO, West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, in three equal instalments @ Rs. 5000/- per month starting from February 2015. The total amount of Rs. 15,000/- will be remitted by April 2015.
The amount of Rs 10,000 will be deducted from the salary of Shri D.P.Bhardwaj, AE(B)/APIO, West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation in two equal instalments @ Rs. 5000/- per month starting from February 2015. The total amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be remitted by March 2015.
The Superintendent Engineer, FAA, South Delhi Municipal Corporation is directed to recover the above amounts of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs 10,000/- respectively from the salaries of S/Shri A.K.Meena and D.P.Bhardwaj, and remit the same through Demand Drafts or Banker's Cheques in the name of Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Shanti Priye Beck, Joint Secretary (Admn.), Central Information Commission, Room No. 302, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066."
XXIV. In the instant case also, it was clearly directed that this penalty amount should be deducted from the salaries/pension of each of the two i.e. Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, deemed CPIO/the then FAA, by the Public Authority in two equal installments as specified in CIC's order (first installment in the month of July 2024 and second installment in the month of August 2024) and paid Page 38 of 46 by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067". It is noted that instead of depositing first installment amounting to Rs. 5,000/- each from their salaries, Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA, vide letter dated 12.07.2024 have uploaded a copy of two Demand Drafts bearing No. '502609' and '502610' of Rs. 10,000/- each, wherein it is recorded that both the DDs' have been purchased in the individual capacity by Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and not by Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary for his own part. Date of issuance of Demand Draft i.e. 12.07.2024, clearly establishes that it has not been recovered from the salaries. Thus, the Respondent Public Authority failed to recover the penalty amount from the respective salaries of penalized officers. It is pertinent to mention that Penalty imposed on a government employee is typically reflected in their service record and can impact their career advancement. The details about an employee's pay, allowances, deductions, and other relevant financial information, Disciplinary actions, including penalties of stoppage of increments etc. is usually mentioned in the Last Pay Certificate (LPC). It is further noted that after passing of the Commission's order on dated 24.05.2024, Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA has been relieved by the Respondent Public Authority and he has joined the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) as Secretary in the month of June 2024. There is nothing on records of the Commission which shows that penalty amount has been deducted from their individual salaries, and the Commission apprehends that Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, then FAA, has concealed this factum while joining a different organization and has made every possible effort that penalty imposed upon him by the Commission should not be mentioned in his LPC records. All these shenanigans and subversive tactics adopted by the penalized officers prima facie indicate continued mala fide.
XXV. It is pertinent to mention that the penalty is imposed on officers in their individual capacity and not on the organization concerned. But UIDAI on one hand has filed to recover penalty amount from salary and on the other have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition Page 39 of 46 No. 3019/2025 and hence, its locus in the case is not established. It is beyond comprehension as to 'in which capacity' the penalized officer has approached the Hon'ble High Court through their organization. Since there is nothing on record which proves that the Respondent Organization has deducted the penalty amount from the Salary of the penalized officers. There clearly is a continued attempt to evade the factum of PENALTY NOT COMING ON RECORD. Such a serious deviation can happen only when at least a director level officer hoodwinks the system. The CEO, UIDAI would be well advised to look into it personally and to facilitate the same, let a copy of this decision be served on him by name. From this aspect also the attempt to subvert the system, deceit and mischief with mala fide intent and evade responsibility continues even today.
XXVI. From the documents available on record the orders of CIC dated 24.5.20024 in this case ARE NOT YET COMPLIED WITH BY THE UIDAI due to pending "deduction from SALARY/PENSION" of the penalized officers. Therefore, the assertion that the CIC Orders are complied with UNDER PROTEST is neither based on facts of the case nor are bona fide in intent; hence, cannot be taken as true. The Orders of CIC dated 24.5.2024 are still unimplemented by the UIDAI.
XXVII. If penalty amount is allowed/accepted to be paid by any other mode than deduction from salary there is an eminent possibility when officers will be protesting deducting and at the same time 'someone' on their behalf will deposit the penalty amount. There are several such organizations where the contractors or clients will be more than willing to oblige with or without the knowledge and consent of the penalized officer.
Decision with regard to representation dated 25.06.2024:
XXVIII. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the instant case is being pursued by the Commission in compliance with the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 3019/2025 in the case titled "Unique Identification Authority of India v/s Central Information Commission, New Delhi dated 17.04.2025, wherein following directions have been passed:
"xxx Page 40 of 46
19. In the circumstances, it is incumbent on CIC to consider the attendant facts and circumstances to assess whether the conduct of the CPIO/FAA is egregious so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
20. A representation/application in this regard has already been submitted by the petitioner on 25.06.2024. In the circumstances, it would be apposite if the said application is duly considered and decided by the CIC taking into account the facts and circumstances as highlighted therein. It is directed accordingly. The CIC is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.
21. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application/s are also disposed of."
XXIX. The Commission would like to point out that in the averred representation dated 25.06.2024, the Respondent Public Authority is seeking modification of the Final Order dated 24.05.2024, passed by the Commission and further requesting the Commission to revoke the penalty imposed on the erring the then CPIO and FAA. In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon a judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Development Authority vs Central Information Commission, W.P. (C) No. 12714/2009, dated 21.05.2010, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"xxx
35. Yet another instance of the complete transgression of the statutory powers is to be found in Regulation 23. The said regulation, inter alia, provides that an appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, notwithstanding that the decision or order of the Commission is final, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It further seeks to empower the Chief Information Commissioner to consider and decide such a request as he thinks fit. Neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed thereunder grant the power of review to the Central Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot, without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of a special leave to appeal."
XXX. It is also pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in the matter of Dominic vs. State Information Commission, in W.P. No. 2522/2016, dated 26.06.2019, has held as under:
Page 41 of 46"xxx
6.On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it can be seen that the initial complaint filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by virtue of the orders passed by the first Appellate Authority on 30.08.2013 as well as the subsequent order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the State Information Commission. Since according to the petitioner, the requisite information was not supplied, a fresh complaint under Section 18(1)(e) of the said Act came to be moved on 29.08.2015. In said proceedings, what was required to be adjudicated was whether the petitioner had been supplied incomplete, misleading or false information under the said Act. However, the State Information Commission while passing the impugned order has infact exercised the power of review. It has observed that since the respondent no.2-School was not receiving grant-in- aid, it was not a public authority and therefore no information was liable to be supplied. It is to be noted that the earlier orders dated 30.08.2013 and 15.01.2015, directing the information to be supplied had not been challenged by the respondent no.2. The State Information Commission therefore was required to consider the subsequent complaint as filed on 29.08.2015 within the purview and scope of the provisions of Section 18(1)(e) of the said Act. By passing the impugned order, the State Information Commission has infact set aside the order which was operating in favour of the petitioner without the same being challenged by the respondent no.2. The power of review not being an inherent power and the same not having been conferred under the provisions of the said Act, its exercise by the State Information Commission is beyond its jurisdiction. It is thus clear that the impugned order suffers from exercise of jurisdiction not conferred. A fresh consideration of the said proceedings is therefore warranted.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the respondent no.1 is set aside. The said complaint is restored for being adjudicated in the light of provisions of Section 18(1)(e) of the said Act. To enable such adjudication, the parties shall appear before the State Information Commission on 12.07.2019. All the points are kept open for being urged before the said Authority.
8. The Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs."
XXXI. In view of the above decisions, the Hon'ble High Courts have time and again made it clear that the RTI Act does not empower the Information Commissions under the RTI Act to review and modify their own orders. Further, the Legislature while passing the statute has made it clear that Page 42 of 46 'The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding' under Section 19 (7) of the RTI Act and is not subject to further discussion or change or review or modify by the Information Commission, and it carries legal weight and enforceability. The RTI Act does not empower the Information Commissioners to either modify or review their own orders.
XXXII. However, the Respondent Public Authority vide representation dated 25.06.2024 is seeking modification of order passed by the Commission which is contravention of the statute as well as to the precedents of superior Courts. In the previous hearing held on 15.05.2024, it was clearly established that the denial under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act in providing the information to the Appellant by Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the then FAA, was deliberate, not expressly covered under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act and the information was not provided to the Appellant at the initial stage with a mala fide intent. The information sought by the appellant was related to his premature repatriation which was denied by the Respondents by claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. However, the Respondents while replying to the RTI application and the first appeal failed to explain as to how the disclosure of information would fall within the said exempted provisions. The Respondents during the previous hearing admitted their mistake for wrongly claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds merit in the Appellant's argument challenging denial of information citing Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, without any justification. It is pertinent to note that numerous decisions have been passed by the Courts holding from time to time that simply citing Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is perverse in law and untenable as such. In this regard the Commission would like to reply to the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner [146(2008)DLT385], passed on 03.12.2007, with the following observation:
" ..xxx
13. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be ground Page 43 of 46 for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be Germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would be-come the haven for dodging demands for information..."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its decision dated 03.06.2011 in the case of B S Mathur vs Public Information Officer [W. P. (C) 295/2011] has held as follows:
"...xxx
19. xxx...As regards Section 8 (1) (h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8 (1) (h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would "impede‟ the investigation."
Thus, denial of information by the Respondent by merely claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is legally untenable under the scope of the RTI Act, particularly when no investigation was ever launched let alone its continuation while replying to the RTI Application.
XXXIII. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the final order passed on 24.05.2024 by the Commission, is justified, fair and needs no modification. Even the subsequent developments as noted in the observations in this decision indicate continued subversion of the lawful provisions. Accordingly, the Commission cannot review or modify its decision as requested in the representation dated 25.06.2024 filed by the Respondent Public Authority.
XXXIV. Penalty was imposed due to an undeniable falsification, deceit, abuse of authority and disingenuity applied in the denial by blatant wrongful claim to exemption by the then PIO and deemed PIO that is the then FAA, which is again visible even in the falsified compliance with CIC Orders dated 24.5.2024 in terms of (a) non-deduction of penalty amount from salary;
Page 44 of 46(b) one of the penalized officers making payment through Demand Draft on behalf of both the penalized officers; (c) Payment of penalty amount through a single installment instead of recovery in two equal installments from salary; (d) NOT BRINGING THE FACTUM OF PENALTY ON RECORD; and (e) embroiling the Respondent Organization in the subversion of CIC decision by involving it as a party, which can happen only by misuse of power at least at the Director level. Accordingly, the matter is brought to the NOTICE of the CEO, UIDAI to look into it personally and to recover the penalty amount from SALARY by serving a copy of this decision on him by name.
XXXV. As discussed above, the Central Information Commission (CIC) does not have power to review its own decisions. Even if for a moment it is assumed that the CIC had this power, in view of above narrated continued mala fide, abuse of one's official position and evasion to comply with RTI Act in letter and spirit and order there under, this case would have been a fit case not only for rejection of representation but also for enhancement of penalty.
Thus, the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 3019/2025 in the case titled "Unique Identification Authority of India v/s Central Information Commission, New Delhi dated 17.04.2025, are complied with.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927
1. Shri Piyush Chand Gupta Director (HR) and CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India, Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market, New Delhi - 110001 Page 45 of 46
2. Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary FAA & Deemed PIO, Unique Identification Authority of India, Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market, New Delhi - 110001
3. Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Chief Executive Officer, Unique Identification Authority of India, Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market, New Delhi - 110001 Page 46 of 46 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)