Central Information Commission
Mr.C L Sharma vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 21 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001898/15287Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001898
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. C. L. Sharma,
SWOA, UCO Bank,
Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala,
Distt. Kangra, H.P.
Respondent (1) : Mr. T. S. Thakur,
Chief Manager and the then PIO
UCO BANK,
Zonal Office,
Shyam Nagar, Dharamshala, (H.P.).
(2) : Mr. S. C. Neogi,
PIO & Dy. Zonal Manager
UCO BANK,
Zonal Office,
Shyam Nagar, Dharamshala, (H.P.).
RTI application filed on : 16-10-2010
PIO replied on : Not replied
First Appeal filed on : 09-12-2010
First Appellate Authority order of : 23-12-2010
Second Appeal received on : 18-07-2011
Information sought:
1. Whether the Officers who are working in Dharamshala Zone and are getting the reimbursement of petrol expenses every month under Scheme-A and Scheme-B in connection with journeys undertaken for Bank's work within the periphery of their headquarters are simultaneously also eligible to claim the reimbursement of petrol expenses in connection with journeys undertaken for Bank's work outside the periphery of their headquarters. If yes, kindly provide a certified copy of guidelines permitting both the reimbursements i.e. with in the periphery of their headquarters and out side the periphery of the headquarter in connection with journeys undertaken for Bank's work.
2. Number of Officers in Scale-I to Scale-TV Dharamshala Zone who are not claiming any reimbursement of petrol expenses under Scheme-A and Scheme-B.
3. Can an Officer on transfer is entitled to receive Rs.9000/- being the amount incurred in connection with packing, local transportation and breakage etc. without shifting the household goods and without claiming the actual freight charges by way of bills and GR etc. If yes, kindly provide a copy of guidelines permitting this payment.
4. What are the requirements for becoming eligible for payment of HRA on capital cost basis?
What documents and papers are required by the authority for sanctioning the HRA on capital costs? Kindly provide a copy of each of the documents required for this purpose along with the copy of detailed circular permitting this payment.
5. Usually permission is granted to the Officers on transfer to shift their car from their place of posting to place of transfer. Please inform in detail the purpose behind it and provide a copy of guidelines permitting the payment of shifting of car to new place of posting.
Page 1 of 4The PIO reply:-
No information had provided to the appellant from the PIO.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was received by the Appellant.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The undersigned is hereby again directing the PIO, Dharamshala to dispose of your application dated 16-10-2010 within 7 working days from the date of receipt of this letter". Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information received from PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 24 October 2011:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. C. L. Sharma on video conference from NIC-Kangra Studio; Respondent : Absent;
"The Appellant states that the PIO has sent reply on 14/10/2011. It appears that the PIO has not provided any information on query 1 & 2. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the information regarding query 1 & 2 for the last three years to the Appellant."
Commission's Decision dated 24/10/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant on query 1 & 2 for the last three years to the Appellant before 20 November 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 21 November 2011 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant. It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders to the respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions under Section 20(2) against the PIO."
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 21 November 2011:
The following were present Respondent : Mr. S. C. Neogi, PIO & Dy. Zonal Manager and Mr. T. S. Thakur, Chief Manager/the then PIO( from August 2010 to January 2011);
The PIO has yet not provided the complete information and has sent some information on 08/11/2011 after the order of the Commission. In this also information has not been provided point- wise. The Commission is again directing the PIO to provide the information as follows:
1- Query-1: If there are any guidelines permitting both the reimbursement a copy will be provided to the Appellant. If there are no such guidelines this will be stated.Page 2 of 4
2- Qeury-2: Number of officers in Scale-I to Scale-IV who are not claiming reimbursement will be provided to the Appellant. The PIO states that he can provide this information within 15 days.
3- Query-4: The PIO is directed to provide the information as sought by the Appellant.
The Present PIO Mr. Neogi is directed to provide the information on the three points as directed above to the Appellant before 10 December 2011. Mr. S. C. Neogi present PIO has given written submission in which he has stated that the applicant has filed three RTI applications. No reasonable explanation has been offered for the information not being provided.
The Commission asked the then PIO Mr. T. S. Thakur to explain why no information had been provided to the Appellant against his RTI application dated 16/10/2010. The Commission also notes that the FAA had also ordered on 23/12/2010 that the information should be provided to the Appellant within 07 working days. The then PIO Mr. Thakur admits that he has not provided any information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application of 16/10/2010, nor did he provide any information after the order of the FAA. Some partial information has been provided by the present PIO only on 08/11/2011. Mr. Thakur states that the applicant had filed three RTI applications and he had provided information in two other RTI applications. He contends that he provided the information sought by the Appellant in reply to two other RTI applications on 27/11/2010 and 07/01/2011. The Commission has perused these replies and notes that no significant information has been provided in both these letters. It is clear that the PIO Mr. Thakur did not provide any information to the Appellant and also did not obey the order of the FAA to provide the information.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Page 3 of 4Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub- section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
The RTI application had been filed on 16/10/2010 to which no information was provided. The FAA gave an order on 23/12/2010 to provide the information within 07 days, yet no information was sent to the Appellant. Some partial information was sent to the Appellant only on 08/11/2011. The PIO has no given no reasonable explanation for the delay. Since the delay in providing the information had been for over 100 days the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. T. S. Thakur, Chief Manager/the then PIO.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. T. S. Thakur, Chief Manager/the then PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. T. S. Thakur `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Chairman & Managing Director, UCO Bank is directed to recover the amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. T. S. Thakur and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. T. S. Thakur and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from January 2012. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of May, 2012.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 21 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA) Copies to:
1- Chairman & Managing Director
UCO BANK,
10, Brabourne Road,
Head office, Kolkata-01
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 4 of 4