Central Information Commission
Mr.Sushant Sharma vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 16 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000727/8883Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000727
Complainant : Mr. Sushant Sharma (Advocate)
No. 140, 1st Floor, Uday Park,
New Delhi- 110049
Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath,
PIO & Registrar
Public Information Officer
E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal
4th floor, Scope Building
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi
Facts arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Sushant Sharma had filed two RTI applications with the PIO, E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi on 14/12/2009 asking for certain information. However, on not having received the information within the mandated time, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO on 07/06/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the Complainant, nor has it received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the information to the Complainant. Therefore, the only presumption that can be made is that the PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused to give information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Failure on the part of the PIO to respond to the Commission's notice shows that there is no reasonable cause for the refusal of information. Further, the Complainant has also informed the Commission that he has not received any information till date.
Commission's Decision dated 09/08/2010:
The Complaint was allowed.
"In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is hereby directed to provide the complete and correct information in regard to the two RTI Applications dated 14/12/2009 to the Complainant before 29/08/2010 with a copy to the Commission. From the facts before the Commission, it appears that you have not provided any information within the mandated time and have therefore failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the PIO's part in providing the information amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission's direction as well and also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.
The PIO is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 16/09/2010 at 11:00a.m. along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the PIO may serve this notice to such persons who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and may direct them to be present before the Commission along with the PIO on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. If the information has already been supplied to the complainant, bring a copy of the same to the Commission with your written submissions, and also proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any."Page 1 of 3
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 16/09/2010:
Respondent: Mr. Vishwanath, PIO & Registrar, EPFAT; Mr. B.B. Pradhan, Advocate The PIO & Registrar Mr. Vishwanath has stated that both the RTI applications were received in his office on 14/12/2009. Mr. Vishwanath has also stated that no information has been provided to the Complainant till date.
When the Commission asked Mr. Vishwanath the reasons for not providing the information till date, he stated that in 2007 his office was shifted from Skylark Building, Nehru Place to Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place, In October 2007 since the 6th & 7th floor of the same building had caught fire, all the records were remain unattended for months. In May 2008, the office was shifted in EPFO, HQ, Bhikaji Kama Place temporarily. Finally in September 2008 his office was shifted to the Scope Minar, Luxmi Nagar. Mr. Vishwanath has further stated that since September 2008 the process of arranging the records is still going on. The PIO has also mentioned that there is an acute shortage of staff in his office and since his primary work function is to conduct hearings, the RTI application was lying unattended from December 2009. However, after having received the Commission's order, both the replies were prepared.
Mr. Vishwanath has submitted the replies for both of the RTI applications before the Commission. On perusal of the information, it appears that the information on Query nos. 3, 4 & 5 has not been compiled yet which are as follows:
"3. What is the expenditure for each camp hearing in the above period of 2 years? Details for each camp hearing be supplied.
4. What are the number of cases taken for camp hearing and number of cases disposed off in each camp hearing in the above said period of 2 years'
5. List of eases in taken for camp hearing and list of matters finally disposed of, on merits, be provided for."
In view of this, the Commission directs the PIO Mr. Vishwanath to provide the correct and complete information as listed above to the Complainant before 06/10/2010.
Mr. Vishwanath was asked to justify the reasons for the delay. He has given written submission which have been listed above. The fire that Mr. Vishwanath refers to occurred in October 2007 and the RTI application was filed on 14/12/2009. Hence claiming that the fire was responsible for the delay two years later does not appear to be a valid excuse. He has also stated that in September 2008 the office was shifted and hence he claims that in December 2009 he was unable to meet the statutory duty of supplying the information to the appellant. He has also stated that there is a shortage of man power. If a Government Department cannot meet its statutory duties and excuses are given of this nature, governance cannot function. The RTI act is the only law which pins the liability personally on the PIO. Even if we assume that there is an overload of work it is unlikely that any rational officer will neglect doing a job where there is a personal liability for delay. The fire and the shifting of the office were incidents which had occurred two years and one year before the RTI application was received. Hence these cannot be linked to the action of not having supplied information within time, since they did not occur around the time when the RTI applications were received. It is also significant that no reply or information were sent to the complainant for nearly nine months after filing of the RTI application.
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;
Page 2 of 3Provided 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."
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that the PIO or deemed PIO acted reasonably and diligently is clearly on the PIO.
The RTI Application had been filed on 14/12/2009 and the information should have been provided before 14/01/2010. Instead the information has just been brought before the Commission by the respondent. Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days and no reasonable cause has been provided for the delay the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Vishwanath. Since the delay has been for over 100 days the Commission imposes a maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Vishwanath, PIO & Registrar. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Vishwanath `25,000/-.
The Presiding Officer, E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal, is directed to recover the amount of `25,000/- from the salary of Mr. Vishwanath 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. Vishwanath and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from October 2010. The total amount of `25,000/- will be remitted by 10th of February, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 September 2010
1- The Presiding Officer
E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal
Ministry of Labour and Employment
4th floor, Scope Building
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 3 of 3