Central Information Commission
Sital Chandra Adhikari vs National Library on 4 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/NALIB/C/2016/290730
Sital Chandra Adhikari v. PIO, National Library
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 15.03.2016, CPIO reply-21.04.2016, FAO- Nil, Second appeal filed on
20.06.2016, Hearing on 04.01.2018;
Proceedings on 04.01.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by Ms. Gopa Ghosh
Date of Decision - 04.01.2018: Penalty Imposed
ORDER
FACTS:
1. Appellant sought the copies of notings, papers, and documents relating to holding of DPC for promotion from Senior Library Attendant to Library Clerk held on 15.10.2015, copies of Departmental Promotion Committee papers submitted to DPC, copies of minutes, etc. and processing its implementation. The CPIO in his reply stated that information sought was related with DPC (local), the recommendations of which are not yet implemented as they were under consideration of the higher officials and therefore, would attract exemption under Section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005; the information can be supplied only after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over.
2. The Commission's order dated 04.09.2017:
2. The CPIO has denied information invoking Section 8(1)(i) which is available only to the cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. Following is the text of section 8(1) Not withstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen: -
(a) to (h) .....
(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
CIC/NALIB/C/2016/290730 Page 1
3. Thus the proviso to this exception facilitates disclosure of decisions, reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete and over. This means material relating to cabinet decision cannot be given until the matter is complete and over. The appellant is not asking about any cabinet decisions. He wants simply the file-notings and other material relating to holding of DPC meeting. This was denied on the excuse DPC recommendations are still pending consideration, against which CPIO cannot invoke this exception.
Moreover the promotion related information has to be kept in public domain by the public authority voluntarily as per the DoPT Office Memorandum Number 1/34/2013 for implementation of Suo Motu Disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005, dated 29th June 2015. This OM was issued based on the recommendations of experts Committee consisting of Sri A N Tiwari (Chief Information Commissioner retd) and Dr. M M Ansari (Information Commissioner, retd) on implementation of Suo Motu disclosure under Section 4(1)(b). This can be accessed at http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/RTI- 29062015.pdf, Paragraph 4 of this OM says:
In order to reduce the number of RTI applications relating to service matters, the information relating to recruitment, promotion and transfers should be brought into public domain promptly.
4. The Commission finds that the CPIO's response is in breach of RTI Act and also the Office Memorandum referred above.
5. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide complete information along with certified copies to the appellant within 15 days from this date.
6. The Commission found that Mr Parthasarathy Das has denied information wrongfully invoking Section 8(1)(i) in Bablu Chatterjee v PIO of National Library case (CIC/SH/C/2006/000277) also. The Commission directs Mr. Parthasarathy Das, PIO as on date of filing of RTI application, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information, before 30.09.2017.
Decision :
3. Ms. Gopa Ghosh, present CPIO representing the Public Authority stated that complete information was provided to the appellant on 13.09.2017 through registered post. She produced the explanation of Mr. Parta Sarathi Das, former CPIO to show-cause notice dated 04.09.2017. In response to the Commission's order Mr. Parthasarathy vide his letter dated 11.09.2017 submitted that in absence of regular Administrative Officer at National Library he was discharging an additional responsibility of CPIO, he was not conversant with details legal interpretation of various sub-sections of the RTI Act 2005. He also pleaded not to show cause to him as he in no way related with administration and had discharged his duties with integrity and without any prejudice.
CIC/NALIB/C/2016/290730 Page 2
4. Assuming, Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, genuinely believed the disclosure of the documents sought by the appellant was exempted under section 8 (1) (i) of RTI Act, the CPIO should have replied the same within 30 days from date of receipt of RTI application. The CPIO received the RTI on 15.03.2016 and sent the reply on 21.04.2016, causing a delay of 7 days.
5. The Commission finds Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, CPIO liable under section 20 of RTI Act for not furnishing information to the appellant, within prescribed time limit. After deducting the date of receiving of RTI and the date of sending reply to the appellant, the Commission finds that the CPIO has caused unreasonable delay of 5 days. Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, CPIO is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,250/- in one monthly instalment. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs.1,250/- from the salary payable to, Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, CPIO by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 1 equal monthly instalment. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 04.03.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S.P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Room No. 505, Central Information Commission, Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, National Library, Belvedere, Kolkata-700027.
CIC/NALIB/C/2016/290730 Page 3 2. Shri Sital Chandra Adhikari, CIC/NALIB/C/2016/290730 Page 4