Central Information Commission
R Buvanesvari vs Ut Of Puducherry on 29 January, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UTPON/A/2018/174043-UM
Mrs. R. Buvanesvari,
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
O/o Superintendent, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education
Pipmate Campus Lawspet,
UT of Puducherry - 605008
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.01.2021
Date of Decision : 29.01.2021
Date of RTI application 12.06.2018
CPIO's response 04.07.2018
Date of the First Appeal 16.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.12.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide her RTI application sought the information on the following 03 points:-
1. Certified copy of Complaint dated 18.09.2009 and 20.04.2010 forwarded from Puducherry Women Commission, Puducherry vide No. 21/1312/PWC/10-11 dated 17.08.2010 to Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Pipmate, Puducherry;
2. Certified copy of follow up Action Taken Report with regard to the above complaint;
Page 1 of 63. Certified copy of File Noting along with all correspondence with regard to the above complaint;
The CPIO and Supdt., vide letter dated 04.07.2018, provided a point-wise information to the Appellant wherein for point 01, it was informed that there is no record of receiving a letter from the Puducherry Women's Commission, on the date indicated by the Applicant, in the registers of the Directorate and for points 02 and 03, that the question doesn't arise. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide complete information within time bound frame and to initiate penal action against the CPIO for not providing the information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. R. Buvanesvari through AC;
Respondent: Ms. R. Kalavathi, Supdt.-cum-PIO and M. S. Ramesh, Officer on Special Duty and FAA through AC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that wrong and misleading information has been furnished to her by the CPIO stating that "there is no record of receiving a letter from the Puducherry Women's Commission, on the date indicated by the Applicant, in the registers of the Directorate". In support of her contention, the Appellant submitted that she has attached a copy of complaint letter dated 17.08.2010 along with the track consignment relating to delivery of complaint forwarded from Puducherry Women Commission, Puducherry to Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Pipmate, Puducherry. She further submitted that she has waited for the last 10 years for justice to be done, but no action has been taken so far. Therefore, strict action should be taken against the erring PIO for suppressing the information sought by her. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the reply of the PIO and further submitted that she has recently joined as a PIO in the Respondent Public Authority. During the hearing, the Commission observed that the Respondent (CPIO) was not fully conversant with the facts of the case and made generalized statements without in-depth understanding of the subject matter taking shield behind her new posting.
Thereafter, the First Appellate Authority present during the hearing, informed the Commission that this being very old record, they could not ascertain the factual position in the matter. The FAA later on agreed to re-examine the matter and to do needful in Appellant's complaint dated as mentioned in the RTI application. On being queried by the Commission regarding the record retention policy of the Respondent Public Authority, the First Appellate Authority submitted that there is no record retention policy in their Department. The Commission took serious note that the First Appeal of the Appellant has not been disposed off by the FAA, till date.Page 2 of 6
The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision 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."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Complainant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 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."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
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 a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. 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".
Page 3 of 6Furthermore, 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.
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at."
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:
"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."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity on the part of the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Page 4 of 6DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and considering the recalcitrant attitude of the Respondent in dealing with the complaint of the Appellant relating to serios allegations of harassment at work place, the Commission expressed its deep displeasure over the poor handling of the RTI matters on the part of the public authority which seemed ignorant of the letter and spirit behind the enactment of this law. Therefore, the Commission directs the Director, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Puducherry, to enquire into the matter and fix accountability of the delinquent officer and submit its report within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission.
The Commission also instructs the FAA to re-examine the RTI application of the Appellant and furnish a point-wise information to the Appellant as sought in the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within the above stipulated time period.
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 with the above directions.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर के राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 29.01.2021 Page 5 of 6 Copy to:-
1. Yasan Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Director, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Pipmate Campus Lawspet, UT of Puducherry - 605008
2. M. S. Ramesh, Officer on Special Duty and First Appellate Authority, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Pipmate Campus Lawspet, UT of Puducherry - 605008 Page 6 of 6