Central Information Commission
Hitesh Chugh vs Delhi Development Authority on 30 October, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DDATY/A/2018/124937-BJ
Mr. Hitesh Chugh
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Asst. Director (RTI)/Nodal Officer
Delhi Development Authority (RTI Implementation & Co-ordination Branch)
C - Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
2. CPIO
Asst. Director (PB - 1), DDA
B Block, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.10.2019
Date of Decision : 30.10.2019
Date of RTI application 11.12.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 03.02.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.04.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought clarifications on 03 points regarding the details of movable property (jewellery) purchased by Shri Vimal Mehra, Retired Superintending Engineer (Electrical), whether the intimation of purchase (details as mentioned in the RTI application) was given by Shri Vimal Mehra to DDA Department as per GOI Rules, if not, then whether not intimating the said purchases to the department violates the Regulation 16 of DDA (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1999, if the said clause was violated by the responsible officer, what action would be taken by the Competent Authority along with the details thereof.Page 1 of 6
Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Asstt. Director and Mr. Amit Kumar, SSA;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent informed the Commission that initially, the file remained untraceable as a result of which no reply could be sent. He tendered unconditional apology for the same. However, it was assured that they would undertake measures to ensure that the reply is sent to the concerned applicant within the stipulated time period. In its written reply dated 22.10.2019, a point-wise position of the extant guidelines was intimated to the Commission under intimation to the Appellant. In its written submission dated 22.10.2019, the Respondent submitted that the RTI application dated 11.12.2017 was received in the Personnel Branch-1 on 15.12.2017 and marked to concerned Dealing Assistant/ APIO for providing the personal file/ material. The APIOs informed that the personal file of Shri Vimal Mehra SE (Elect.) retired relating to which the information was sought by the Appellant was not traceable in record. The First Appeal dated 05.02.2018 was also received in their branch on 13.02.2018 which was marked to the APIOs by his colleague which was not in his knowledge. It was thereafter stated that the RTI application pertained to the personal file of Shri Vimal Mehra SE (Elect) who retired on 31.12.2016 and after the retirement, the personal file was no more required hence it was transferred to the record room situated in the basement. Replies to various RTI applications filed by the Applicant relating to the said file were given upto 01.09.2017. Thereafter, the file could not be traced due to mixing of the file with other files in the record room. However, on receipt of the notice of hearing from the Commission, efforts had been made and after due deliberations with the previous Dealing Assistants/ APIOs and officers, the file had been traced out from the record. While regretting for the delay in providing a reply to the RTI Application/ First Appeal the Respondent provided a point wise response against the queries raised in the RTI application.
Having heard the Respondent and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observed that a timely response was not provided to the Appellant which was in contravention to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context, the Commission referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."Page 2 of 6
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that ".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
A reference can also be made to the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Block Development Officer, Paonta Sahib vs. State Information Commission and Anr., CWP No. 6072 of 2012 dated 27.06.2018 wherein it was held as under:
"9. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and, therefore, should be quashed and set aside. It was further argued that the petitioner on receipt of the application had transferred it to the concerned authorities and, therefore, there was no lapse on his part. He would also urge that the petitioner did not know the intricacies of the RTI Act and, therefore, he could not have been penalized.
10. I find no merit in the contention put-forth by the petitioner. It is more than settled that ignorance of law can be no excuse. Once the petitioner is designated as PIO, then all the more he is deemed to have knowledge and even otherwise the least that was required of him was to have acquainted himself thoroughly with the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the explanation as sought to be put-forth by the petitioner at this stage clearly reflects the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner. The only reasonable explanation for the cause of delay can be accepted and not lame excuses."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
Page 3 of 6"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
However, regarding the queries raised by the Appellant regarding the assets of a third party, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Rajbir W.P.(C) 13219/2009 and CM 14393/2009, decided on 24.08.2017 had held as under:
"9..................Respondent has not provided any credible justification for seeking information regarding the personal assets of the MCD employee in question.
10. There can be no doubt that the information sought by respondent is personal information concerning an employee of MCD. Such information could be disclosed only if respondent could establish that disclosure of such information was justified by larger public interest. Even if the PIO was satisfied that disclosure of such information was justified, the PIO was required to follow the procedure given under Section 11 of the Act; that is, the PIO was required to give a notice to the concerned employee stating that he intends to disclose the information and invite the employee to make submissions on the question whether such information ought to be disclosed."
Furthermore, in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 it was held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.Page 4 of 6
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission cautions the CPIO / FAA to be alert in discharging its responsibilities as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 30.10.2019
Page 5 of 6
Copy to:
1. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi Commissioner, Personnel and Housing , DDA, E-Block, Ground Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi 110023 Page 6 of 6