Central Information Commission
V P Sharma vs National Informatics Centre on 20 February, 2026
CIC/NICHQ/C/2024/652773
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/NICHQ/C/2024/652773
V P Sharma ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National
Informatics Centre (M/o. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Electronics & Information
Technology), New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 13.09.2024 FA : Not on record Complaint : 24.11.2024
CPIO : 22.11.2024 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 18.02.2026
Date of Decision: 18.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Provision of Certified copy of my complete ACR / APAR folder The furnishing of the above Information is permissible as per Provisio to Section 8 of the RTI Act which runs as follows- "Provided that the Information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."Page 1 of 7
CIC/NICHQ/C/2024/652773
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"As per information received from NIC Personnel Section i.e custodian of information and Deemed PIO), the reply of the RTI request is:-
Details of complete ACR/APAR of Sh. Vijay Pratap Sharma, Ex-Scientist-E (Emp. Code: 4205) have been received in PDF format as per submission of ACR/APAR by Individual & availability of office records.
Due to the voluminous nature of the information, scanned copies of the ACR/APAR are being separately by email to the applicant's email account [email protected] It is informed that the RTI Act provides you a right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the from of access provided (including particulars of the Appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms). Therefore, in case you want to go for an appeal in connection with above, you may appeal to the Appellate Authority indicated below within thirty days from the date of issue of this letter."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 24.11.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Swarup Dutta, Senior Director/CPIO and Ms. Vishakha Jamwal, Section Officer, NIC - participated in the hearing.
4. The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Complainant. He averred that the scanned copies of the APAR / ACR were furnished by the CPIO to Complainant vide letter No. 1(225)/2024-RTI dated 22.11.2024 to his email address. He averred that the complainant had earlier had not sought inspection of records Page 2 of 7 CIC/NICHQ/C/2024/652773 and has now in the instant Complaint has raised the request for inspection of records. He averred that that copies of other papers contained in the APAR folder can be provided to the applicant after due severance of exempt information in accordance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005. A written submission dated 17.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Decision:
5. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
6. Further the Complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section Page 3 of 7 CIC/NICHQ/C/2024/652773 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
7. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
8. Moreover, at this stage the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Complainant for initiating penal action against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Page 4 of 7 CIC/NICHQ/C/2024/652773 Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
9. Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
10. Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
Page 5 of 7CIC/NICHQ/C/2024/652773 "....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is Page 7 warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
11. The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009, Date of decision: 04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."
12. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no mala fide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Page 6 of 7 CIC/NICHQ/C/2024/652773 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Scientist-"F"-(Grievances & RTI)-HQ., National Informatics Centre (M/o.
Electronics & Information Technology), Grievances & RTI Section, A-Block, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2 V P Sharma Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)