Central Information Commission
Shri. Mahebub Ramzan Sheikh vs Department Of Personnel Andtraining & ... on 29 May, 2009
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4034/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000122
Dated, the 29th May, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Mahebub Ramzan Sheikh
Name of the Public Authority: 1) Department of Personnel andTraining.
2) Ministry of Minority Affairs
i
Facts:
1. The appeal was heard on 27/5/2009 in absence of the appellant. The following respondents were present in the hearing:
(i) Shri. Suneel K. Arora, CPIO, DoPT
(ii) Shri. C.A. Subramanian, Director, DoPT
(iii) Shri. Virendra Singh, CPIO, M/o Minority Affairs
(iv) Shri. Ashish Joshi, Director, M/o Minority Affairs
2. The appellant has asked for information regarding the status of recruitment of Minorities in different Central Government Departments. Specifically, the appellant asked for the following information:
"Annual reports regarding the recruitments of Minorities in the Services of all groups in all Ministries/Departments of Central Govt. & specially of Govt. of Maharashtra".
3. He submitted his RTI application dated 3.7.08 to the DoPT, i.e. respondent-1 which transferred the application u/s 6(3) of the Act to the respondent no.2, i.e. the Ministry of Minority Affairs, for providing the information. Both the respondents 1 and 2 exchanged a number of communications and could not decide as to which Govt. Department should provide the requested i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1 information. Since the appellant did not receive the requested information, he submitted the appeal dated 24.2.09 before the Commission.
4. The appellant's submission before the Commission is self-explanatory and therefore re-produced herein below:
(i) "On 3/07/08, the appellant had sent an application to the CPIO Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions , Dept. of Personnel Training, New Delhi-110001 for obtaining the information in regarding of the annual report of recruitments of minorities in the services of all groups in all Ministries/Departments of the Central Govt. & Specially of Govt. of Mah. The Xerox copy of the said application is enclosed herewith as document No.1.
(ii) The CPIO & Under Secretary (Suneel K. Arora) to govt. of India Ministry of PPG & P, DOPT has given reply of the aforesaid application by his letter dated 1/08/08, and stated that the concerning information is related to the Ministry of Minority Affairs. He accordingly forwarded the said application (Dt. 3/07/2008) to the Ministry of Minority Affairs, directing him to furnish the information directly to the appellant. The xerox copy of the said letter of CPIO Shri Suneel Arora is enclosed herewith as documents No.2.
(iii) But the Ministry of Minority Affairs, by his letter No.A-
47011/1/2008/estt. (RTI) has stated that the said information is related to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Deptt. of Personnel Training, New Delhi - 110 001 & it should be furnished by them. The said letter referred above is not available with the appellant as the same is missing. However, the envelop in which the said letter was issued, is enclosed herewith as document No.3.
(iv) Therefore the appellant again applied to the CPIO of Ministry of P.P. Grievances, New Delhi, by letter dated 5/9/2008 and requested to send the information as sought for. The Xerox copy of the said letter of dated 5/9/08 is enclosed herewith as document No.4. The said authority has not replied of the said letter.
(v) Having been aggrieved by the letter of CPIO, Shri Suneel Arora i.e. document No.2, and the missing letter referred above sent to me in the envelopment of documents No.3, the appellant preferred an appeal (first) before the Chief Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel P.G. and Pension Dept. New Delhi, vide Annexure-B dt.14/10/08. The Xerox copy of the said first appeal is enclosed herewith as documents No.5.
(vi) Thereafter, on 19/11/2008, the appellant received one office Memorandum dtd. 21/10/08, issued by CPIO of Ministry of Personnel, PG 2 & Pension, Shri Suneel K. Arora, in which he has mentioned about the allocation of business Rules of the President. As per the same he has stated that the Ministry of Minority Affairs is the legal & correct authority to furnish the said concerning information. The Xerox copy of the said office Memorandum is enclosed herewith as document no.6 (Please note that the date of RTI application in subject para is wrongly mentioned in the said office Memorandum. It should have been mentioned as 3/07/08.
(vii) Thereafter, the appellant received a letter dated 31 Oct. 2008, issued from Sh. C.A. Subramanian, Director & Appellate Authority of the Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension, New Delhi. In this letter the said Authority has mentioned that the appeal dt. 14/10/08 is transferred to the Appellate Authority of Minority Ministry namely Shri Sujit Datta, Joint Secretary. Also this Authority ( C.A. Subramanion) has directed the appellant to send the appeal to the said Appellate Authority of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, namely Shri Sujit Datta. The Xerox copy of the said letter dt. 31 Oct. 2008 is enclosed herewith as document No.7.
(viii) Thereafter, the appellant received one office Memorandum dt. 21 Nov. 2008 issued by the CPIO, of the Ministry of Minority Affairs namely Shri. Virendra Singh. From the contents of this Office Memorandum, it seems that the said Appellate Authority of the Ministry of Minority has forwarded the said Appeal dt. 14/10/2008 again to the Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pensions by mentioning that the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) is the nodal Department for all matters pertaining to the recruitment in the Government, including the Minority. The Xerox copy of the said office Memorandum dt. 21 Nov. 2008 is enclosed herewith as documents No.8.
(ix) Thereafter, the appellant received a letter Dt. 25th Nov. 2008, issued by Shri. C.A. Subramanian Director, of the Ministry of Personnel P.G. Pensions New Delhi, addressing it to Shri Sujit Datta the Appellate Authority of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, New Delhi, and issuing copy of it, to the appellant. The said Shri. C.A. Subramaniam has passed a verdict that the matter concerning to the said information is to be handled by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. The Xerox copy of this letter dt. 25/11/08 is enclosed herewith as document No.9.
(x) Therefore, having taken into consideration the contents of all the above letters & Office Memorandums, the appellant preferred an appeal (first) to the Joint Secretary, Shri Sujit Datta, of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, vide Annexure B dt. 3/12/2008, in the same way as was preferred to the Ministry of Personnel P.G,. & Pension New Delhi by Annexure B, dt. 14/10/08 (Doc. No.3) with intention, not to leave any legal lacuna. The Xerox copy of the said appeal dtd. 3/12/2008 is enclosed herewith as doc. No.10.
3(xi) Thereafter, the said appellate Authority Shri Sujit Datta, by his letter dt. 15/01/2009, dismissed the appeal by giving reasons therein. The Xerox copy of the said letter/order is enclosed herewith as document No.11.
(xii) From the above letters & office Memorandums, it seems that the CPIOs & Appellate Authorities of both the above Ministries are avoiding to furnish the said information. The appellant's submission is that these authorities have failed to furnish the said information. Therefore appellant is preferring this second appeal before the Hon'ble Authority on the following grounds.
Grounds of Appeal
i) Shri Suneel K. Arora, the CPIO & Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions Deptt. of Personnel & Training, New Delhi has erred in sendig the appelalnt's application i.e. Annexure A dt. 3/07/2008 to Shri Virendra Singh, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, Ministry of Minority Affairs by holding that the Matters in questions are not related to the Ministry of him ie. The Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pensions New Delhi.
ii) The CPIO & Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pensions (Shri. Suneel Arora) should have seen that his Ministry/Department is the main competent Ministry/Department to collect and maintain half yearly & annual reports of the trends in recruitment of minorities in the prescribed proformas from all the Ministries/Departments as per the office Memorandum 39016/7(S)2006-Estt. (B) dt. 8th Jan. 2007, issued by Shri C.B. Paliwal, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry Personnel P.G. and pensions Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi.
iii) The CPIO (Shri Virendra Singh) and Deputy Secretary of Govt. of India, Ministry of Minority Affairs New Delhi, also erred in holding that the matters in question are not related to him, means to his Ministry of Minority Affairs. He also should have seen the office memorandum referred in ground No.2 in which his Ministry of Minority Affairs is also competent Authority to maintain the data of the trend of recruitment of Minorities, in all the Ministries/departments.
iv) Having taken into consideration the aforesaid grounds, it seems that the CPIOs & Appellate Authorities have failed to furnish the information as sought for, by pushing responsibilities of the same on each other.
4v) The decisions of the aforesaid authorities as they have taken in their aforesaid letters and office memorandum are contrary to the provisions of the Law & Rules & the same are against the public interest at large.
Prayers: It is therefore prayed that (i) This Hon'ble authority be please to allow the appeal & give directions to the concerning authority/authorities to supply the information as sought for, in the interest of justice & oblige;
(ii) the Hon'ble authority be pleased to saddle heavy penalty on the concerning authority/authorities; (iii) also grant the reliefs in favour of the appellant which this Hon'ble authority deem fit & proper; (iv) also saddle heavy costs on the concerning authorities/authority directing them to pay the same directly to the appellant for the cost incurred & harassment sustained."
5. During the hearing, the CPIO of respondent-1 stated that as per the work/subject allocation "employment opportunities for minorities in the Central and State, Public Sector Undertakings as also in the private sector" is allocated to respondent-2. He also said that in response to a Parliament question, the respondent-2 has already disclosed the requested information to the Parliament on 18/12/2008. The CPIO of the respondent-1, therefore, argued that the respondent-2 is the custodian of the requested information and, therefore, the transfer of application to the CPIO of the respondent-2 was justified. Thus, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, respondent-2, is liable to provide the requested information under the provisions of the Act, he reiterated.
6. In his defence, the CPIO of the respondent-2 presented evidences to the effect that the DoPT, respondent-1, has been mandated, vide PMO's direction to DoPT dated 31.08.2006, to collect and maintain the relevant information. He submitted the minutes of a meeting convened by the PMO on 2.1.07, which states as under:
"Principal Secretary to PM, with the approval of the Prime Minister, had written to Secretary, DOPT on 31.08.2006 informing him that the following points under the Prime Minister's New 15-Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities, relate to DOPT:
Recruitment to State and Central Services
(a) For the recruitment of police personnel, State Governments will be advised to give special consideration to minorities. For this purpose, the composition of selection committees should be representative.
(b) The Central Government will take similar action in the recruitment of personnel to the Central police forces.5
(c) Large scale employment opportunities are provided by the Railways, nationalized banks and public sector enterprises. In these cases also, the concerned departments will ensure that special consideration is given to recruitment from minority communities.
DOPT was further advised that suitable guidelines in respect of the above may be evolved in consultation with Ministry of Minority Affairs, instructions be issued to the implementing agencies, and the Department may make appropriate arrangements for monitoring the status."
7. In the said PMO's decision dated 2.1.07 the earlier direction to the DoPT was re-iterated as under:
a) "DOPT is the nodal Ministry for issues related to laying down policies and rules for recruitment, and accordingly, it has correctly been identified as the nodal Department for the implementation of points relating to 'Recruitment to State 7 Central Services' under the Prime Minister's New 15-Point programme for the Welfare of Minorities. Therefore, no amendment needs to be made in the allocation of responsibility to DOPT as conveyed vide PMO DO No.850/21/C/3/2006-Pol., dated 31.8.2006.
b) Suitable guidelines in respect of implementation of the aforesaid points under the Prime Minister's New 15-Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities are evolved by DOPT, in consultation with the Ministry of Minority Affairs, without further delay. DOPT shall also take necessary steps to devise appropriate monitoring proformae and ensure necessary arrangements for monitoring the status of implementation of the aforesaid points".
8. Subsequent to the above decision, the DOPT circulated among the Secretaries of all the Ministries/Departments of GOI, a pre-designed format for compilation of relevant information regarding employment status of Minorities. The information sought for relate to: (i) total number of employees in the organization; (ii) number of persons employed during the specific period; and (iii) the number of minority persons employed during the year. This information was sought for different groups of employees. The aforementioned circular clearly mentioned that "with a view to monitoring the trends in recruitment of Minorities, all the Ministries/Departments are requested to submit Half Yearly/Annual Reports in the enclosed proforma -I and II respectively to this Department with a copy to the Ministry of Minority Affairs".
9. In this backdrop, the CPIO of the respondent-2 stated that the requested information by the appellant should have been furnished by the CPIO of the respondent-1. He asserted that he was not responsible for providing the information asked for by the appellant.
610. The appellant has alleged that none of the respondents- 1 & 2, have taken the responsibility of providing the requested information, which is held by both of them. He has, therefore pleaded before the Commission that (a) the information asked for by him should be furnished; (b) the CPIOs should be penalized u/s 20(1) of the Act for obstructing the flow of information; and (c) suitable compensation should be awarded for the harassment and detriment suffered by him.
Analysis of Facts and Decision Notice:
11. A major concern of right to information (RTI) has been to dismantle the culture of secrecy with a view to allowing the citizens to observe and scrutinize the decision making processes as well as to assess the outcomes of public policies. And, thus, RTI empowers them to exercise their democratic rights, through participation in public activities, to fine tune the development policies and programmes. In the RTI regime, people are indeed enabled to seek accountability of the Government through access to information in respect of various policy pronouncements made from time to time. In view of this, any attempt to withhold information on the grounds, other than those provided for u/s 8(1) and 9 of the Act, would prove to be counter productive in so far as promotion of democratic governance is concerned, to which the nation is committed.
12. In the instant case, lack of cooperation and understanding between the respondents or lack of willingness to share the information is chiefly responsible for refusal to attend the RTI application submitted by the appellant. On the issue of the employment status of Minorities, both the respondents are equally responsible for compiling and managing the information. This is evident from the circular dated January 8, 2007 of the respondent-1, which states that "with a view to monitoring the trends in recruitment of Minorities, all the Ministries/Departments are requested to submit Half Yearly/Annual Reports in the enclosed proforma -I and II respectively to this Department with a copy to the Ministry of Minority Affairs". Therefore, it is not understandable as to why the CPIOs of respondents 1 and 2 should not cooperate and amicably decide and evolve procedures for sharing information with a requester, who desires to have access to the information regarding employment opportunities for the Minorities. Unfortunately, none of the CPIOs of respondents were willing, during the hearing, to rescind the position already taken in this regard. They remained adamant and neither of them was willing to take the responsibility for providing the information.
13. The evidences presented by the respondents are clear and conclusive. As per the decision of the Committee of Secretaries (COS) and subsequent PMO's direction vide letter dated 31.8.2006, which was re-iterated in its communication dated 2.1.2007, the DoPT, has the mandate to formulate and implement recruitment policy. Accordingly, the respondent-1 has designed the format for collection, compilation and analysis of the relevant data in respect of 7 employment status of Minorities. The DoPT has also circulated the format among the Govt. Departments vide its circular dated 8-1-07, in response to which it must have received the data and analysed them also for articulation of employment and recruitment policy for promoting welfare of Minorities.
14. The CPIO of the DoPT, Shri. Suneel K. Arora, is thus the principal custodian of the requested information. He has, therefore, wrongly transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) of the Act, to the respondent-2. And, at the subsequent stages of request for providing information, he did not take upon himself the responsibility of providing the information. In response to the first appeal, the Appellate Authority of the DoPT too did not provide any relief to the appellant. The CPIO of the DoPT is therefore, liable for imposition of penalty u/s 20(1) of the Act, as he has failed to provide the information for reasons known to him.
15. Under Section 20(1) of the Act, penalty of Rs.250/- per day, up to a maximum of Rs.25,000/-, may be imposed if the CPIO has refused to furnish the information within the stipulated period of thirty days and that without any reasonable cause. The fact that the CPIO of DoPT has deliberately evaded and avoided furnishing of information available in his department, and his explanation in this regard is found inadequate and unacceptable, a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) is imposed on the CPIO of the DoPT, Shri. Suneel K Arora. The Secretary, DoPT is directed to deduct Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in five equal installments of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each, with effect from August 2009, from the salary of the CPIO, Shri. Suneel K. Arora, and deposit by way of Bankers cheques drawn in favour of PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal, payable at New Delhi, to the Registrar, Central Information Commission.
16. In its circular dated January 8, 2007, the DoPT has clearly mentioned that a copy of the response from all the concerned Government Departments should be submitted to the respondent-2, i.e. the Ministry of Minority Affairs. In effect, thus, in the matter of employment status of Minorities, the respondent-2 is also the custodian of the requested information. This is also borne by the fact that the respondent-2 has already disclosed the relevant information in response to the Lok Sabha Un-starred question No.3091 of 18/12/2008, which was raised by Shri Asaduddin Owaisi. The CPIO of respondent-2 admitted during the hearing that his office collects and compiles the relevant information and also publishes them in the Annual Reports.
17. The CPIO of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, Shri. Virendra Singh, is also the custodian of information. He too has evaded and avoided the question of providing the information for malafied reasons. The Appellate Authority has also refused to provide any relief to the appellant without any justifiable reason. The CPIO is, therefore, liable for payment of penalty u/s 20(1) of the Act as the clarification and explanation provided by him in defence of his actions for denial 8 of information is not acceptable. Accordingly, a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) is imposed on the CPIO of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, Shri.Virendra Singh. The Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs, is directed to deduct Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in five equal installments of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each, with effect from August 2009, from the salary of the CPIO, Shri.Virendra Singh, and deposit by way of Bankers cheques drawn in favour of PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal, payable at New Delhi, to the Registrar, Central Information Commission.
18. The DoPT, being the principal custodian of requested information, to which the original RTI application was submitted by the appellant, should provide the information free of cost within one month from the date of issue of this decision. The CPIO, DoPT, is directed accordingly.
19. The Ministry of Minority Affairs, which is responsible for implementation of various schemes for promotion of welfare of Minorities, should disclose on suo moto basis the entire details of relevant programmes together with the extent of realization of targets, in such a manner that a citizen does not have to resort to the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is accordingly directed to load the information on the official website within one month from the date of issue of this decision.
20. The appellant has diligently pursued his RTI application with the respondents asking for disclosure of information relating to employment status of Minorities. In absence of such vital information as this, necessary feedback from the affected groups cannot be obtained for designing the policy on inclusive growth, which is the major thrust of India's development planning. The respondents have, therefore, obstructed the flow of requested information and thus deprived the appellant of his democratic rights to reflect on the issue of welfare of Minorities. The appellant has, therefore, suffered detriment and all forms of harassment in seeking access to information as he has persistently been writing to the respondents for providing information. And, in this process, he has devoted considerable amount of his precious time and resources, and that in the larger public interest. His efforts have been frustrated by the respondents due mainly to lackadaisical attitude of the officials who are connected with the matter. There is, therefore, no reason as to why the appellant should not be suitably compensated u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act for all forms of harassment and detriment suffered by him over a period of about ten months or so for seeking information from the respondents.
21. The Secretaries of both the respondents, i.e. the DoPT and the Ministry of Minority Affairs are therefore directed, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, to separately pay a token amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each in favour of the appellant through a Bank Draft/cheque on or before July 31, 2009, failing which a penal interest @ ten per cent per annum would be 9 applicable. A compliance report should also be submitted to the Commission, within ten days from the date of payments, as above.
22. An advice to both the respondents u/s 25(5) of the Act is also in order:
With a view to promoting inclusive growth, which requires incorporation of elements of welfare schemes for the deprived groups, it is critical to compile and analyse relevant data pertaining to the socio-economic conditions of the target groups, on the basis of which proper inferences could be drawn for policy intervention. In this context, the format designed by the respondents for compiling information relating to employment status of Minorities is highly deficient in many respects, as it reveals much less than what it hides. Keeping in view the larger purpose of compilation of the data, the format in question should be re-designed in consultation with the experts from a cross section of the society, particularly the groups whose welfare is sought to be promoted.
23. The appellant has unduly waited too long for accessing the information mainly because the officials of the respondents could not mutually resolve as to which public authority is required to furnish the information, though both the Ministries are the custodian of the requested information. The instant appeal, therefore, provides desirable study material for examining the manner in which the officials of the Government Departments scuttle off the PMO's oft-repeated directions dated 31.08.06 and 2.1.07 and shirk responsibilities to avoid scrutiny of public action and to evade the test of accountability. In the era of fast growth, can we afford such a mindset as this of our service providers?
24. With these observations, the complaint petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Mahebub Ramzan Sheikh, Civil & Criminal Court, Bhadravati, Dist.
Chandrapur - 442 902.
ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 10
2. Shri. Suneel K. Arora, CPIO, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions ,Deptt. of Personnel and Training, New Delhi-110 001.
3. Shri. Virendra Singh, Dy. Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Minority Affairs, 11th floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
4. Shri. C.A. Subramanian, Director, M/o Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Deptt. of Personnel and Training, New Delhi-110 001.
5. Shri. Ashish Joshi, Director, Ministry of Minority Affairs, 11th floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
6. The Secretary, Deptt. of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi-110 001.
7. The Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs, 11th floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
11