Central Information Commission
Akhilesh Pandey vs National Council For Teacher Education on 11 November, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : (As per the Annexure)
AKHILESH PANDEY ......अपीलकता /Appellant
....िशकायतकता
.... /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Council for Teacher
Education, Northern Region,
RTI Cell, G-7, Sector-10
Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/10/2021
Date of Decision : 08/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The instant Appeal(s) & Complaints have been clubbed for decision as
these are based on identical RTI queries related to different B.ED Institutions
situated in Pratapgarh, UP. Further, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings,
Appeal(s) & Complaint(s) based on the same RTI Application have been bunched
together as indicated in the table below.
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
S.No. File No. RTI CPIO First Appeal FAA Order Appeal/Complain
Application Reply filed on t filed on
filed on
1. 600817 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 23.02.2020
+662732 record
+ 664296
2. 600816 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 23.02.2020
+664294 record
+ 662731
3. 600946 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 23.02.2020
664293 record
4. 664292 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 23.02.2020
600925 + record
662765
5. 600814 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 23.02.2020
600815 + record
664291
6. 600812 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 23.02.2020
664289 record
7. 600931 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 23.02.2020
662952 record
8. 600944 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 08.02.2020
662963 record
9. 600942 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 08.02.2020
662960 record
10. 600940 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 08.02.2020
+662959 record
11. 600934 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 08.02.2020
662957 record
12. 600925 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 06.02.2020
662765 record
13. 600922+ 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 06.02.2020
662763 record
2
14. 600921 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 06.02.2020
662762 record
15. 600919 + 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 06.02.2020
662759 record
16. 600819 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 06.02.2020
+662756 record
17. 600818 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 23.01.2020 06.02.2020
+662753 record
18. 600937 05.11.2019 Not on 12.12.2019 Not on 08.01.2020
record record
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.11.2019 seeking the following information;
"आवेदक को आपक सं था से बी०एड० पा म क मा यता ाि के प ात संचािलत गोकु ल संह मारक महािव ालय,सोनावा, डा० जय मंगल संह ाथिमक िश ण सं थान,भुिपया मउ, नौरं गी देवी प ा लाल िश ण िश ण संसथान,पथितया काला, नारायण महािव ालय, गंिधयावा, आसपुर ,प ी, !दरवेद िगरी मेमो%रयल कालेज, चकवाद, कुं डा, लाल बहादुर संह िश ण एवं िश ण सं थान आइ दा, कुं डा, मैनाथी कु वर च (ावती िड*ी कालेज, सराई अ ादेव, माँ उषा संह महािव ालय, खरहरा, िसपाह, महेरी, माँ कलावती महािव ालय, मंगरौउरा, जगदीशपुर, दचु-त प ी, माँ गोमती मारक महािव ालय, भाव िसया, कुं डा, कुं ती देवी मिहला िश ण सं थान, सराई सु.तानी, रानीगंज, कृ पालु मिहला महािव ालय, कुं डा, जयराज कुँ वारी बाबा पारस पाल संह महािव ालय,लीलापुर,साहबगंज, इ ( नारायण कृ 0ण कु मार महािव ालय, भटनी, लालगंज, माँ कै लाशी सािव1ी देवी मिहला महािव ालय, जगदीशपुर, बीरापुर, रानीगंज, तापगढ़, उ5र देश, बाबू चि (का साद मिहला महािव ालय, मु ताफापुर, 7सैनगंज, जय माँ वै0णो िश ण के (, िथयौरा, दुगरी, फतेहपुर, उ5र देश, कौशा;बी िड*ी कालेज, ित.हापुर मोड़, कौशा;बी, उ5र देश के स;ब ध म> कु छ सूचना@ क आवAयकता है । जो िनBिलिखत है:-3
1-उD सं था क मा यता ाि के समय मा यता दान करने वाली तथा भौितक िनरी ण करने वाली सिमित के सद यE का नाम,पद,िनयुिD थान क सूची दान करने का कF कर> । 2- उD सं था Hारा मा यता ाि के समय उपलIध एवं जमा कराए गए सम त भौितक एवं मानवीय संसाधनE क मािणत ित एवं ईमारत का नJशा दान करने का कF कर> । 3- उD सं था क भौितक िनरी ण करने वाली टीम Hारा भौितक एवं मानवीय संसाधनE क कराई गई फोटो*ाफ तथा वीिडयो %रकॉMडNग क मािणत ित दान करने का कF कर> । 4- उD सं था क मा यता ा से लेकर वत-मान समय तक िनयुD ाचाय- िवभागाPय एवं िश कE क मािणत ित एवं वत-मान समय म> उD सं था को !कतने यूिनट एवं !कतने छा1E के वेश क अनुमित ा है क मािणत ित दान करने का कF कर> । 5- उD सं था Hारा Rयेक वष- जमा क जाने वाली ऑिडट %रपोट-/बैले स शीट क मािणत ित दान करने का कF कर> ।
6- उD सं था Hारा मानक से कम िश क िनयुD करके एवं िवभागाPय तथा ाचाय- का पद %रD रखते 7ए बी०एड०पा म को संचािलत !कया जा सकता है।
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2019.
Subsequently, the Complainant filed the instant Complaints dated 08.01.2020 alleging deemed refusal to provide the information by the CPIO.
Later, the FAA passed an order dated 23.01.2020 and held as under:
"..... Sh. Naveen Malik, Under Secretary/Public Information Officer (NRC), NCTE to furnish the appropriate reply to the applicant within 7 days in the matter from the date of issue of this letter."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of the FAA's order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of corresponding Appeal(s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Pramod Pandit, Assistant & PIO present through audio conference.4
The Appellant/Complainant stated that all the cases are premised on the same facts and circumstances, which is that no reply was received from the CPIO on either of the RTI Applications within 30 days of its receipt. He further stated that eventually even as the FAA's order was passed directing the CPIO to provide the information within 7 days of the order, the FAA's order remained unheeded.
The Commission took note of the written submissions sent by the PIO wherein he has enclosed a copy each of the replies that were subsequently provided to the RTI Applications by Naveen Malik, the then PIO.
Upon a query from the Commission, the Appellant/Complainant stated that he has not checked the online portal if he has received the replies sent subsequently by the PIO and agreed to go through the portal.
Decision:
The Commission after having perused the written submissions of the present PIO observes that the reply to the instant bunch of RTI Applications was provided only in the month starting July, 2020, i.e on an average there is an 8 months delay in replying to the RTI Applications, and it is further baffling to note that even after the FAA's order of 23.01.2020, the replies have been furnished almost 6 months later by Naveen Malik, the then PIO.
The dates of the replies along with the particulars of the concerned case file is stated below for clarity:
S.No File Nos. Name of the Date of CPIO's reply as emerged from the Institute referred to written submissions dated 19.10.2021 of the in the RTI PIO Application
1. 600922+ Kripalu Mahila 16.07.2020 662763 Mahavidyalaya
2. 600945 + Narayan 08.03.2021 664292 Mahavidyalaya
3. 600946 + Naurangi Dev 03.09.2020 664293 Pannalal Shiksha Sansthan
4. 600925 + Kunti Devi Mahila 08.03.2021 662765 Shiksha Sansthan
5. 600931 + Lal Bahadur Singh 08.03.2021 5 662952 Shikshan Sansthan
6. 600934 + Gomti Smarak 08.03.2021 662957 Mahavidyalaya
7. 600937 Maa Kailashi Savitri 16.07.2020 Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya
8. 600812 + Babu Chandrika 08.03.2021 664289 Prasad Mahila Mahavidyalaya
9. 600814 + Drivedi Giri 16.07.2020 600815 + Memorial College 664291
10. 600816 Dr. Jai Mangal Singh 03.09.2020 +664294 Prathmik + 662731 Prashikshan Sansthan
11. 600817 Gokul Singh Smarak 09.07.2020 +662732 Mahavidyalaya + 664296
12. 600818 Indranarayan 08.03.2021 +662753 Krishna Kumar Mahavidyalaya
13. 600819 Jai Maa Vaishno 07.08.2020 +662756 Prashikshan Kendra
14. 600919 + Jay Raj Kumari Baba 14.07.2020 662759 Paras Dal Singh Mahavidyalaya
15. 600940 Maa Kalavati 16.07.2020 +662959 Mahavidyalaya
16. 600921 + Kaushambi Degree 16.07.2020 662762 College
17. 600942 + Maa Usha Singh 08.03.2021 662960 Mahavidyalaya
18. 600944 + Maa Nainathi 09.07.2020 662963 Kunwar Chandravan Degree College As per the records, Naveen Malik was the concerned then PIO and each of the FAA's order also directed Naveen Malik to provide the reply but each of these replies have been inordinately delayed by Naveen Malik.
At this point, the Commission recalls that in a similar bunch matter of another Appellant, Dr. Mamta Singh Chauhan relating to the same time period and identical nature of information sought for, the averred PIO was proceeded against 6 under Section 20 of the RTI Act vide an Interim Order of 25.06.2021 based on the following observations:
"The Commission takes grave exception to the colossal failure of the NCTE's RTI machinery evinced from the blatant violation of the provisions of the RTI Act by the above referred erring CPIOs. None of the 13 RTI Applications were replied to within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act and even the FAA's order remained unheeded for months together which shows the utter disregard of the CPIOs for the directions of the competent authorities within their own establishment in addition to the violation of the statutory duty cast upon them by virtue of the RTI Act. The said prima-facie omission of Abhimanyu Yadav & Naveen Malik, then PIO(s), NRC, NCTE amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Complainant's right to information and is liable for imposition of maximum penalty as well as disciplinary action under Section 20 of the RTI Act."
Subsequently, vide the Final Order of 09.07.2021, the following findings and decision was recorded:
"The Commission observes that from the submissions of the PIOs, it is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that cumulatively, the onus of not having provided a timely reply to all the 13 RTI Applications under reference and for defying the multitude of FAA's order lies with Naveen Malik, Under Secretary & then PIO. Throughout the course of the hearing, Naveen Malik harped on the fact that NCTE as an establishment had responded to all the RTI Applications, but clearly the action on these RTI Applications was effectuated by the predecessor and/or successor of Naveen Malik, who in this case was Abhimanyu Yadav and later Pawan Bairagi. No tenable explanation was forthcoming from Naveen Malik, then PIO during the hearing for the total abdication of his statutory duty cast upon him by virtue of the RTI Act and this lends credence to the prima- facie observations of the Commission recorded in the Interim Order regarding the obstruction caused to the Complainant's right to information.
xxx Per contra, as it transpires from the facts on record, the inaction of Naveen Malik, Under Secretary & then PIO is not restricted to one RTI Application but all of the 13 RTI Applications under reference. Even though, no malafide intention is apparent in his inaction based on the strength of the material on record but it is bewildering to note that in each period of his posting as the PIO, no action was taken by him on the pending RTI Applications. In fact, it was either his predecessor or successor who took action on the pending RTI Applications. This amounts to an unreasonable conduct on the part of Naveen Malik, Under Secretary & then PIO and omission of such magnitude emerges as a threat to the RTI regime of NCTE."
Pertinently so, in the averred case, as regards the merits of the reply provided by Naveen Malik, the following was observed in the Interim Order of 25.06.2021, and the same observation is applicable to the instant set of cases:
7".......the reply provided by Naveen Malik, then PIO does not even address the RTI queries in a point-wise manner, rather he has mindlessly denied all of the information under Section 8(1)(d) & (j) of the RTI Act..."
Following the same ratio, another bunch matter of O P Gupta related to identical queries, facts and circumstances was also decided vide an Interim and Final Decision in the following manner:
Interim Decision of 03.09.2021 "Now, since the same facts and circumstances pertaining to the same time period and the same PIO has been already adjudicated upon at length, the Commission finds little reason to afford another opportunity to Naveen Malik, then PIO to explain the same omission again. Yet, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, Naveen Malik, then PIO, NRC, NCTE is hereby directed through the present PIO to appear before the bench on 17.07.2021 at 12.00 pm (via audio conference mode of hearing) to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Further, the said then PIO is directed to send his detailed written submissions, respectively, along with supporting documents, if any, to the Commission at least 48 hours in advance of the show-cause hearing."
Final Decision of 17.09.2021 "The Commission has empathetically considered the detailed submissions of Naveen Malik, US & then PIO tendered in the instant set of cases, yet it does not find any reason to depart from the decision taken in the earlier similar set of cases of Dr. Mamta Singh Chauhan decided against the said PIO as observed in the Interim Decision. The following observation recorded in the case of Dr. Mamta Singh Chauhan's case also holds ground for the instant set of cases:
'Per contra, as it transpires from the facts on record, the inaction of Naveen Malik, Under Secretary & then PIO is not restricted to one RTI Application but all of the 13 RTI Applications under reference. Even though, no malafide intention is apparent in his inaction based on the strength of the material on record but it is bewildering to note that in each period of his posting as the PIO, no action was taken by him on the pending RTI Applications. In fact, it was either his predecessor or successor who took action on the pending RTI Applications. This amounts to an unreasonable conduct on the part of Naveen Malik, Under Secretary & then PIO and omission of such magnitude emerges as a threat to the RTI regime of NCTE.
In the considered opinion of this bench, for the reasons stated above, even after according a liberal view to the continuing inaction of Naveen Malik, Under Secretary & then PIO in the matter, the instant case calls for imposition of a token penalty on him in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.' 8 The omission of Naveen Malik, US & then PIO to reply to more than a dozen RTI Applications and recurrent non-compliance of the FAA's order is astounding to note and ignorance of law is not a justification for violating the statutory duty cast upon the PIO by virtue of the RTI Act. Moreover, the fact that identical RTI Applications were filed by different persons during the same time period is rather inconsequential to the outcome of the instant case as it is not the case that the averred PIO had engaged himself in replying to even one of these RTI Applications at the relevant time."
More recently, in another set of similar cases of Dr. Vimla Mishra & Dr. Sunita Khare heard and decided on 27.09.2021 observed as under:
"Having afforded adequate opportunities of being heard to Naveen Malik in the interest of natural justice with respect to the same omission and the same time period to which the cause of action relates to, the Commission does not find it expedient to afford any further opportunity specific to the instant set of cases. In other words, the decisions in the matter of Dr. Mamta Chauhan and O P Gupta is squarely applicable to the instant set of cases."
Now, applying the same ratio to the instant set of cases, the Commission hereby imposes a token penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Naveen Malik, Under Secretary & then PIO (NRC), NCTE for the gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This amount will be deducted from his salary which will be remitted by January, 2022. The FAA is directed to recover the total amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) from the salary of Naveen Malik, Under Secretary & then PIO (NRC), NCTE and remit the same through a Demand Draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT payable at New Delhi and send the same to the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) Central Information Commission, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067.
The present PIO should ensure service of this order to Naveen Malik, then PIO, NRC, NCTE under due intimation to the Commission.
As regards the information sought for in the RTI Application(s), the Commission observes that the square denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d) & (j) of the RTI Act is not completely appropriate and is rather an evasive reply. The denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is appropriate in parts for points 1 & 4 of the RTI Application, where third-party related details regarding the inspection committee members, staff & students have been sought 9 for. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
The denial of the documents of the institutes submitted for grant of recognition; maps as also the photos & videography and audit reports sought for at points no.2, 3 & 5 of the RTI Application, respectively is erroneous. It may be noted that the documents and information referred to at points no.2 & 3 of the RTI Application relates to the basis on which recognition is granted to the Institutes by NCTE and cannot be denied under Section 8(1)(d) or (j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, disclosure of the information related to the infrastructure of the Institute is in the larger public interest of its stakeholders i.e the student and teacher community. Similarly, audit reports are a public document and cannot be denied as being personal. Further, the information regarding the student teacher ratio and permissible class units sought for in the second part of point no.4 of the 10 RTI Application ought to be made available in the public domain. As for point no.6 of the RTI Application, no relief is warranted as the query does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act since the Appellant has sought for clarification and interpretation of the PIO based on a hypothetical query.
Nonetheless, considering the enormity of the information sought for regarding the multitude of institutes, the Commission deems it fit to offer an adequate opportunity of inspection of records to the Appellant.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission now directs the present PIO to facilitate an adequate opportunity of inspection of the relevant and available records as sought for at points no. 2, 3 & 5 along with the information regarding the student teacher ratio and permissible class units sought for in the second part of point no.4 of the RTI Applications(s) to the Appellant on a mutually decided date & time. The intimation of the date & time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents identified and desired by the Appellant shall be provided to him free of cost by the CPIO. The said direction shall be complied with by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission along with an inspection report including inter alia the details of the records facilitated for the inspection and details of the copies of documents provided thereof.
The appeal & complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स$यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 11 Copy to:
First Appellate Authority National Council for Teacher Education, G-7, Sector-10, Near Sector-10 Metro Station, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
--(For compliance of the above directions) Copy to:
Deputy Secretary (Admin.) Central Information Commission
--(For information) 12 (Annexure) S.I. File Nos.
Nos.
1. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/664296
2. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/664294
3. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/664293
4. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/664292
5. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/664291
6. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/664289
7. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662952
8. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662963
9. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662960
10. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662959
11. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662957
12. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662765
13. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662763
14. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662762
15. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662759
16. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662756
17. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662753
18. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662732
19. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662731
20. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600944
21. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600942
22. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600921
23. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600940
24. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600919
25. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600819
26. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600818
27. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600817
28. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600816
29. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600815
30. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600814
31. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600812
32. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600937
33. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600934 13
34. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600931
35. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600925
36. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600946
37. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600945
38. CIC/NCTED/C/2020/600922 14