Central Information Commission
Mr.Mukul Mishra vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 10 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002513/9892Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002513
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Mukul Mishra,
C/A14, Old Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad- 201202 UP.
Respondent : Mr. Rajinder Singh,
Registrar & Deemed PIO
State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o of the State Commissioner
A Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 19-01-2010
PIO replied : 15-04-2010
First appeal filed on : 15-03-2010
First Appellate Authority order : 19-08-2010
Second Appeal received on : 08-09-2010
Information sought:
1. Pl. provide me information regarding Not Reporting Certificate /ACRs for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 on following points.
a. Work capacity.
b. Intelligence.
c. Conduct.
d. Integrity.
e. Overall assessment.
2. And my vigilance status as on Feb., 2009(last) from:
Directorate of Vigilance.
Department of consumer affairs (P&S).
The PIO's reply:
"With reference to your application dated 21.01.2010 regarding Non-reporting Certificates/ACRs for the year 2004 to 2009. In this connection, it is inform you that ACRs of the Members of District Consumers Disputes Redressal Fore are not maintained by the Consumer Affairs Branch. Your ACRs received earlier through regional state Commission had been returned back to the Registrar, state commission as the same not maintained by this branch."
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied with the PIO's reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The undersigned have gone through the main RTI application dated 19.1.2010 and observed that the appellant sought the copies of Not Reporting Certificate/ACRs in the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 on Work capacity, Intelligence, Conduct. Integrity and Overall Assessment as well as Vigilance Status as on February 2009. On perusal of the record, it is observed that Shri Mukul Mishra was functioning as Member, District Forum (North East/East). He was not a regular employee of this Department, nor he was employed on contract basis. He was Page 1 of 4 working as a member in the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and was getting lump sum honorarium and. conveyance allowance. As such, maintenance of ACRs does not cover under the purview of CCS (Conduct Rules). However, the Registrar, State Commission is directed to provide the copies of the required documents to the appellant as per rules within a week under intimation to the undersigned. The appeal is disposed off with these observations. Ordered accordingly."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been provided by the PIO and not satisfied with the FAA's order.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Mukul Mishra;
Respondent: Mr. K. R. Mendiratta, Deemed PIO & Assistant Director;
"The appellant was a contractual employee of the District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forum. He was seeking copies of his ACRs for various years. The PIO states that there is no practice of submitting ACRs by these forums or by the State Commission itself. He claims that the District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forums have to work under the State Commission as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. The appellant is showing that the appellate authority had on 19/08/2010 stated that "As such maintenance of ACRs is not covered under the preview of CCS(conduct rules) however the register, state Commission is directed to provide the copies of the required documents to the appellant as per rule within a week under intimation to the under signed." The PIO states that the FAA's ordered was sent to the Registrar of the State Commission. The appellant has received the ACRs from the office of the Registrar, State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission today from Mr. Khanna, Head Clerk. It appears that the order of the FAA was not implemented by the Registrar, State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission."
Decision dated 25/10/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The information appears to have been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO Mr. Rajinder Singh Registrar, SCDRC within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. 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.
Mr. Rajinder Singh, Registrar will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 10 December 2010 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1)."
Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing on 10/12/2010:
Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Singh, Deemed PIO & Registrar, SCDRC and Mr. Rajiv Khanna, Head Clerk, SCDRC;
Deemed PIO & Registrar Mr. Rajinder Singh has stated that the FAA's order dated 19/08/2010 was received in his office on 26/08/2010. Mr. Singh issued a letter dated 27/08/2010 to the Appellant to deposit requisite fee @ `2/- per copy for required documents. After getting the requisite fee `20/- in the form of IPO from the Appellant on 08/09/2010, Deemed PIO Mr. Singh issued a letter on 24/09/2010 to Asstt. Director(CA) requesting for some document sought by the Appellant. The Asstt. Director(CA) furnished the said documents to the Deemed PIO Mr. Singh vide letter dated 04/10/2010. However, the complete information was provided to the Appellant on 25/10/2010.Page 2 of 4
The Commission observes that the information should have been provided to the Appellant within a week from the date of receiving the FAA's order i.e. on or before 02/09/2010. Further the information should have been provided free of cost as per Section (7) sub-section(6) of the RTI Act :-
(7) (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1).
The First Appellate Authority had clearly ordered the information to be provided to the Appellant within 07 days. The Respondent Mr. Rajinder Singh states that he received the FAA's order on 26/08/2010 and instead of sending the information to the Appellant sent a letter on 27/08/2010 demanding additional fee at `2/- per page. As per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act once the period of 30 days is over information has to be provided free of cost. In the instant case the information was to be provided consequent to the order of the FAA when the mandated period as per the RTI Act had expired long time back. After the Appellant paid the additional fee information was finally collected by the Appellant himself on 25/10/2010.
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.
Page 3 of 4The Respondent has given written submissions to the Commission in which he has outlines how he received the FAA's order and subsequently provided the information to the Appellant. No reasonable cause has been offered for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant after the order of the FAA. It is evident that the delay has occurred because of the Respondent asking for additional fees from the Appellant in contradiction to the provisions of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. As per the order of the FAA the information was provided to the Appellant before 02/09/2010. Instead it was provided to the Appellant only on 02/05/2010 i.e. after a delay of 52 days. The Commission therefore imposes a penalty on Mr. Rajinder Singh, Registrar & Deemed PIO as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at `250/- per day of delay for the delay of 52 days i.e. `13000/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Rajinder Singh, Registrar & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 52 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Rajinder Singh `13,000/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delh is directed to recover the amount of `13000/- from the salary of Mr. Rajinder Singh 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 `3250/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Rajinder Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from January 2011. The total amount of `13,000/- will be remitted by 10th of April, 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 10 December 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(BK) CC;
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,
Page 4 of 4