Central Information Commission
Ms.Pooja vs District Session Judge, Delhi on 23 May, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000473/12148Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000473
Appellant : Ms. Pooja
D/o Vijay kumar
R/o 61- D, CBI Colony,
Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi - 110057
Respondent : Mr. Durga Prasad,
Superintendent (Admin-I) & Deemed PIO;
GNCTD, District Session Judge,
Delhi Administration Branch - I,
Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 18/06/2010
PIO replied : ----------
First Appeal filed on : 09/08/2010
FAA's order : 21/02/2011
Hearing Notice Issued on : 30/03/2011
Date of Hearing : 27/04/2011
Information Sought:-
The appellant wants the information about the following:-
(1) What action has been taken on my representation dated 18/05/2010 and Reminder dated 05/06/2010? Pease give me para-wise reply and certified copies of note-sheets/documents in which the said representations have been processed and finally disposed off, showing the decision taken in the matter by the Competent Authority.
(2) Please give me a certified copy of latest instructions of the Govt. of India in the matter of filling up reserved vacancies meant for SC candidates.
(3) Whether the merit lists of 57 successful candidates(competed under General Category)Stenographer Recruitment 2010 and merit list of successful 21 candidates (Sc category) Stenographer Recruitment 2010, have been prepared according to the Instructions contained in OM No./6O11/1/9tEstt(Res.) dated 01/07/98 or any other instructions of Govt. of India. Please give certified copy Of such, or any other instructions;1 made applicable in this case. (4) I belong to SC: Category and my name figures at serial No.126 with Roll No.2793 showing final marks as 84.5 as per Annexure-III. The merit list of successful candidates (SC category shows serial No.21 with Roll No.2295 having placed with merit 85 (final marks). Merit list of successful candidates (competed under General category) shows serial No.57 with Roll No.2948 having placed with merit 101.25 (final marks). In this connection please inform under what rules/Govt. of India instructions, the candidates with serial No. 1 to 6 of merit list of successful candidates (SC Category) securing 102 and above marks have been figured in the said list. Please give certified copy of instructions, governing such action.Page 1 of 6
(5) What is the Date of Birth of candidates at Sl.No.2 Roll No.3220 shown in the merit list of successful candidates under SC Category? Please give a certified copy of the School certificate showing his Date of Birth, as submitted in this office.
(6) Please give certified copies of educational certificates showing Date of Birth of candidates at Sl.No. 1 and 3 to 6 in the merit list of successful candidates under SC Category. (7) Please inform under what rule/instructions of Govt. of India, the candidate at Sl.No.1 to 6, securing merit l02 to 108.5, each have been shown in the merit list of successful candidates (Sc Category) instead of showing them in the merit list of successful candidates (General category) because they all stand above to the serial No.57, the last candidate showing merit as 101:25 (final marks) in the Merit List of successful candidates (General category). (8) The age of the candidates under the below mentioned two categories are above 27 and 30 years under General Category and OBC Category respectively, which is not permissible for the recruitment of Stenographers 2010, as per advt. of the Hon'ble Court. It may please be clarified under which rule/guidelines, the candidates were permitted for the test and selected for appointment in this Hon'ble Court?
GENERAL CATEGORY Sl. No. Roll No. Name Date of Birth Merit 1 3272 Deepti Sharma 22/09/1983 113.5 9 3306 Nidhi Sharma 30/09/1983 110 13 1525 Kamal Singh 19/08/ 109.25 (SC) 19 1517 Dharmender 04/06/1983 108.25 Singh Rawat 31 1544 Sandeep Rawat 18/10/1983 106.5 34 2014 Mukesh Kumar 28/11/1983 106.25 48 1396 Amit Kumar 05/04/1983 104 OBC CATEGORY Sl. No. Roll No. Name Date of Birth Merit 4 2678 Joginder 18/07/1980 107.25 28 3404 Sanjeev Kumar 03/05/1980 96.75 29 1977 Rohini Ghallot 19/09/1980 94.75 (9) What was the cut-off date for counting eligibility of age limit, qualifications etc. for SC candidates?
(10) What were the number of carry-forward vacancies on the cut-off date in ST Category? Please intimate the date from which each of such vacancies were declared vacant. (11) Please intimate the date from which each of the seven posts in ST Category as shown in the advertisement were vacant.
(12) Please intimate the Name, Designation, Room No., Office Tel No. with full address of the Liaison Officer appointed by the Govt. for the Court for the welfare of SC/ST. Please also inform whether my representations dated 18/05/2010 and 05/06/2010 have been placed before the said Liaison Officer or not.
(13) What action has been taken on my representations by the Liaison Officer? Please give me the certified copy of note-sheets/ documents in which the Liaison Officer has processed and disposed off for final decision.
(14) Please inform whether a panel for filling up of future vacancies has been prepared in case of General/OBC/SC/ST candidates, and if so, a copy of the same may please be provided.
Page 2 of 6(15) Please give certified copy of rules/instructions of Govt. of India for filling up of vacancies, out of the list of successful candidates in a particular recruitment process, with special orders of the Govt./any authority.
(16) What are the special instructions of Govt. of India to prepare panel of successful candidates in SC Category?
(17) Please give me a certified copy of Roster applicable for the SC/ST candidates on the basis of which final mark-1ist/merit lists have been prepared. (18) Please give, me the number of file/files/part file(s) and their respective file numbers, with date of their opening in which the above recruitment has been processed. (19) I humbly request your goodself to kindly supply the above information/documents sought by me under RTI A& at the earliest possible as my grievances placed before the Competent Authority have not been solved nor an opportunity was granted to explain the position before the authority, despite filing of a Reminder, and therefore, my Representations stand unattended/unreplied and unsolved. Therefore, the present application is necessitated to be filed under RTI Act, soliciting attention of the Authority.
(20) On receipt of information/documents, I like to call upon your goodself to clear some of the doubts which may arise on scrutiny of the documents/information, for which I shall be highly grateful to your goodself.
Reply from the PIO:
No reply.
Grounds for First Appeal:
No information provided by PIO.
FAAs Order:-
Representation of appellant is under active consideration of the Chairman of the Recruitment committee and decision is expected very soon. Appeal is disposed and outcome of the representation will be conveyed when it arrives.
Grounds for Second appeal:
No information received and FAA has given a wrong decision.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 27 April 2011: The following were present Appellant: Ms. Pooja;
Respondent: Mr. Deepak Toppo, LDC on behalf of Mr. Jai Prakash, PIO & Superintendent;
"The Respondent states that a reply had been sent to the appellant on 21/09/2010 in which it was stated that her case is under consideration and recruitment committee has to take a decision in the matter. He had stated that she would be informed when the committee takes a decision in the matter. No attempt had been made in this to answer the queries sought by the Appellant. The Appellant states that she has not received this communication and the respondent has not proof to show that this was indeed sent to the Appellant. It is significant that the FAA has not mentioned that the PIO claims that information was sent to the Appellant. Since the respondent has not brought any evidence to show that the information or any reply was sent to the Appellant, it appears that no reply was sent to the Appellant.
The Appellant claims that there are arbitrary and wrong process being followed in the selection hence information is not being provided.Page 3 of 6
The respondent has not provided the information sought by the Appellant and even the FAA has not applied his mind in passing the order. Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens. When information is sought by an appellant under RTI it can only be denied if it is exempted under SEction- 8(1) of the RTI Act. No reasons have been advanced by the PIO and no information has been provided to the Appellant."
Commission's Decision dated 27 April 2011:
The appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to provide complete point-wise information to the Appellant as per records before 10 May 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. 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 23 May 2011 at 04.00pm 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."
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 23 May 2011:
The following were present Respondent: Mr. Jai Prakash, PIO & Superintendent; Mr. Deepak Toppo, LDC; Mr. Durga Prasad, Superintendent (Admin-I) & Deemed PIO;
Mr. Jai Prakash present PIO has given written submission in which he has outlined that on receipt of the RTI application on 18/06/2010 a letter was sent to Mr. Durga Prasad, Superintendent (Admin-I) seeking assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. This letter also reminds the deemed PIO that failure to provide information would result in a penalty of Rs.250/- per day. Subsequently reminders were sent on 16/07/2010, 01/09/2010 and 18/09/2010 and copies of all these reminders were sent to the Appellant. Yet no meaningful information was provided by the deemed PIO Mr. Durga Prasad Superintendent (Admin-I). The Deemed PIO claims that this should be considered as information. The Respondent admits that he has sent the information to the appellant only on 10/05/2011 after the order of the Commission.
The deemed PIO Mr. Durga Prasad was asked by the Commission the reasons for not providing the information. He states that he was waiting for the committee to decide so that he could give information about the recruitment process. This is not a valid explanation at all for not providing information. Infact The PIO had clearly sent reminders warning the deemed PIO that a penalty of Rs.250/- of delay would be levied on him. Yet the deemed PIO did not respondent and has offered no reasonable explanation for not providing the information.Page 4 of 6
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."
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 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 was filed on 18/06/2010 and the information should have been provided to the Appellant before 18/07/2010. Instead the information was provided to the Appellant only on 10/05/2011 i.e. after the order of the Commission.
The Deemed PIO Mr. Durga Prasad, Superintendent (Admin-I) has offered no reasonable explanation for the huge delay in providing the information. Since the delay in providing the information is over 100 days the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Durga Prasad.
Page 5 of 6Decision:
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. Durga Prasad, Superintendent (Admin-I) & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Durga Prasad `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. Durga Prasad 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. Durga Prasad and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from July 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of November, 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 23 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RR) CC: To, 1- The Chief Secretary GNCT of Delhi 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 6 of 6