Central Information Commission
Rahul Mittal vs Ministry Of Tourism on 20 December, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/MTOUR/C/2017/124436
Rahul Mittal v. PIO, Indian Institute of Tourism & Travel Mngt.
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 15.11.2016, CPIO replied on 07.12.2016 without any information, FAO
reply NIL, Second appeal filed on 10.04.2017.
Proceedings on 09.10.2017: Appellant and public authority are absent.
Date of Decision: 20.12.2017. Penalty imposed, compensation awarded and disciplinary action
recommended. Disposed of.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The complainant sought information: a) the date of commencement and completion of his contract as Teaching Associate with the institute; b) amount due which is to be paid by him on the last day of his contract and whether any objection to the institute if he joins any other organization in any manner after the last day of the contract. He has attached a Rs. 50/- note to his RTI request.
Since no response was received the complainant filed a first appeal. Authority remained silent. Then complainant sent an IPO for Rs.10/-. The First Appellate, authority has returned the IPO without any information. Being dissatisfied, the complainant approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 12.09.2017:
5.......The Commission directs Shri Amit Tiwari, the present CPIO and the CPIO at the time of filing of this RTI application to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for denying the information besides the reasons mentioned above.
6. The Commission directs the First appellate Authority before whom the appellant filed first appeal to show cause why departmental action should not be initiated against him for not responding to the first appeal.
7. The Commission directs the head of the public authority to explain why public authority should not be directed to pay sufficient compensation to the appellant for harassing him, appropriating his Rs 50 without giving receipt and making him to purchase IPO unnecessarily.
8. All the responses shall reach before 9th October 2017, and the case is posted for compliance on 9th October at 2.15 pm. The Commission has every CIC/MTOUR/C/2017/124436 Page 1 authority to draw adverse inference in the absence of respondent officers or their response. There shall be no adjournment of compliance/penalty proceedings.
Decision :
3. Dr. Saurabh Dixit, Assistant Professor and Nodal Officer IITTM Gwalior & Ex-CPIO, Nodal Officer RTI on 06.10.2017 submitted a reply to the Commission's interim order dated 12.09.2017, which explains:
"1. The information sought by Shri Rahul Mittal in his RTI application dated 15.11.2016 from the CPIO IITTM Gwalior has been mentioned correctly in the interim order. The applicant had submitted the RTI application attaching therewith a currency note of Rs. 50/- from outstation. As per the views expressed by the then CPIO who was handling this assignment at that time when the RTI application was received Shri Rahul Mittal, he has mentioned that there was no provision under RTI act to accept a Currency note sent from outstation and not sent through authorized means, that too of a higher denomination of Rs. 50/- and not Rs. 10/- could not be accepted. Had it been tendered locally and personally the receipt could have been issued by Office but not in this case. The then CPIO also mentioned that he didn't know what to do in this matter as RTI act was also silent and there was no body to guide.
The Applicant instead of submitted an IPO of Rs. 10/-, he sent two IPOs of Rs. 10/- each with the copy of the reply sent by the then CPIO to the applicant initially. The details of the authority to whom the IPOs were payable had not been indicated correctly, the defective IPOs were returned to the applicant, with an advice to mention the details correctly in the IPO of Rs. 10/- to be sent to the CPIO.
The applicant corrected the IPOs and sent a Fresh letter on Two address, one in the name of CPIO Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management, and second in the name of First appellate authority where in Following address was mentioned:
The Appellate Authority Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management DS, Ministry of Tourism, Room No 20, C-1 Hutments, Dalhousie road, New Delhi - 110 011 From the above address it could not be made out whether it was addressed to the IITTM or To Ministry of Tourism by the applicant.
Finally the information was given to the applicant against 1st and 3rsd Items and it was informed that the information required against item no. 2 was not readily available, vide CPIO IITTMS letter 27.03.2017. In continuation, the information against item no. 2 was also provided by the CPIO IITTM vide letter dated 10.05.2017, which will show that the information had already been given against all the items and no appeal had reached at the level of First appellate authority. However the second appellate authority entertained the applicant.
CIC/MTOUR/C/2017/124436 Page 2
2. Need no comments.
3. The Full facts of the case have not been given in the interim order and the reply given against item no 1 as above is reiterated and may be taken as correct.
4. The order of DoPT dated 28.11.2013 as cited in the interim order is very much correct. This order against item no. 17 never mentions that the currency note can be attached from the outstation of a higher denomination not sent through authorized means. And in that case receipt can be issued for the currency note attached with the application by the applicant by the CPIO.
Factual position in this matter remains that the clear instructions have to be issued in this regard for CPIOs as to how they have to go about in such situations.
5. The receipt for the currency note is issued by a Govt. organization when it is tendered personally. We don't find any provision when it is tendered personally. We don't find any provision in the RTI act about the recourse to be adopted in such situations when it is tendered from outstation of a higher denomination through an un authorized channel, as nobody is authorized to send a currency note in an envelope through a courier post. Rs. 50/- were returned to the applicant. CPIO provided the information promptly when the applicant followed the procedure. The application had already been disposed off at the level of CPIO and the appeal had never been made by applicant to the first appellate authority of IITTM against the information provided by the CPIO. A single letter addressed to the appeal, as it was dealt with and finally disposed of by providing full information by the CPIO IITTM. No harassment was matted out to the applicant rather the organization is being harassed without any fault on its part.
6. No comments are needed as no appeal was filed by the applicant before the first appellate authority of the IITTM at any point of time. A common letter address to CPIO IITTM and Appellate authority of IITTM and Ministry can't be termed as a First appeal when the Matter had never been attended to by CPIO IITTM with respect to the information requested for. At that time only the issue about cash/IPO was going on. It is also not known as to how the second appellate authority came into being when the matter had never been dealt with by the First appellate authority of IITTM.
7. The Rs. 50/- of the applicant could not be appropriated. Rs. 10/- had never been deposited as per RTI Act. We request the CIC to issue the clarifications as to what recourse to be adopted in the matter as discussed in the previous paragraphs, as per RTI act to be followed by the CPIOs.
8. We are of the strong view that we have carried out our duties truthfully and faithfully strictly as per RTI act and no mistake has been committed at our end knowingly in the current matter.
4. While the date of RTI application is 15.11.2016, the date of supplying first instalment of information was on 17.03.2017, second instalment of information was on 10.05.2017. The PIO claimed that subsequently 'a consolidated response' was also provided on 01.09.2017 (i.e., after CIC has issued a hearing notice).
CIC/MTOUR/C/2017/124436 Page 3
5. The complainant was thoroughly dissatisfied as there was no response to his application for five months, and his first appeal was simply ignored. He does not even know the reasons for refusal. He assumed that his request was not responded because he gave a Rs. 50/- currency note, instead of IPO. Later on he submitted two IPOs of which the FAA returned one IPO and after long delay, the information was supplied.
6. The DoPT OM No. 1/32/2013-IR dated 28.11.2013, point No. 17 deals with the payment of fees as:-
"17. A citizen who desires to seek some information from a public authority is required to send, along with the application, a demand draft or a bankers cheque or an Indian Postal Order of Rs.10/- (Rupees ten), payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority as fee prescribed for seeking information. The payment of fee can also be made by way of cash to the public authority or to the Assistant Public Information Officer, against a proper receipt. The payment of fee to the Central Ministries/departments can also be made online through internet banking of State Bank of India or through Master/Visa Debit/credit cards".
7. The Complainant has every reason to file this complaint under RTI Act. He was thoroughly harassed with silence and deemed refusal by CPIO. It's sad that First Appellate Authority too behaved in breach of RTI Act, by sending back one IPO without any reason. He did not care to hear the first appeal or pass any order. Non furnishing of information in first 30 days is enough to make the CPIO liable to pay maximum penalty. There is a delay of 5 months. The CPIO is also guilty of not issuing receipt for Rs 50 paid in cash through a currency note. He does not even exhibited courtesy of returning the note to the applicant, who is his colleague and available around. It is not known what happened to his Rs 50 note. The First Appellate Authority did not give any reason for return of IPO, and why he did not order information to be provided. The information sought by complainant was simple and straight, which does not attract any clause of exemption. The complainant was harassed for no reason.
8. Mr. Amit Tiwari represented as CPIO before the Commission on first date of hearing i.e., 11.09.2017. Hence, the Commission issued show-cause notice to Mr. Amit Tiwari. As per records Mr. Amit Tiwari is the designated First Appellate Authority. The Commission also issued notice to First Appellate Authority for not responding to the first appeal and for returning the IPO without giving any reasons. Mr. Amit Tiwari has not responded to show-cause notice as CPIO or FAA. Dr. Saurabh Dixit has responded to the show-cause notice in his capacity CIC/MTOUR/C/2017/124436 Page 4 as CPIO. There is no response from officer holding the position of first appellate authority. The response of Dr. Saurabh Dixit confirms the breach of RTI Act by both the CPIO and FAA. At the end of his response, this highly educated officer Dr. Saurabh Dixit claims strongly that they have carried out their duties truthfully and faithfully strictly as per RTI Act and no mistake has been committed at their end knowingly in the current matter.
9. From the perusal of the records, contentions and the reply to the show- cause notice, it is established that the applicant was not given information within mandatory 30 days, in spite of payment of Rs. 50/- by attaching a note to the RTI application. This is enough to hold the Dr. Saurabh Dixit, CPIO liable under section 20 of RTI Act. In addition to this, the public authority, which includes CPIO and FAA have committed several breaches of RTI Act such as a) Not giving receipt to Rs. 50/-; b) Though appellant produced IPO for Rs. 10/-, he was not given the information raising unnecessary excuses; c) FAA did not respond, returned IPO without giving reasons, did not pass any Order in first appeal. Claiming as a Nodal Officer under RTI Act and designated CPIO, Mr. Saurabh Dixit should have furnished the information within 30 days, returned Rs. 40/- to the appellant along with receipt for Rs. 10/- as fee.
10. The applicant is a Teacher like CPIO Dr. Saurabh Dixit but the CPIO did not exhibit any semblance of professional behavior but preferred to harass a co- teacher using his authority as CPIO. The Commission holds Dr. Saurabh Dixit liable to pay maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, as his response to show-cause notice shows that as CPIO he does not have any interest in providing information to applicants besides having no proper understanding of the Act. Though educated, persons like Mr. Amit Tiwari and Dr. Saurabh Dixit does not deserve to be designated authorities under RTI Act. It is sad and shameful that they were allowed to give such an anti-RTI reply to the show-cause notice.
11. The appellant was thoroughly harassed by silence initially and by giving incomplete information thereafter. The public authority is directed to pay a token compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the applicant, for the harassment he was subjected to, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
CIC/MTOUR/C/2017/124436 Page 5
12. The Commission finds Dr. Saurabh Dixit is liable under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 for the reasons explained above. Hence, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in 5 equal monthly instalments.
13. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the salary payable to, Dr. Saurabh Dixit by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 15.02.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 15.06.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S.P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Room No. 505, Central Information Commission, Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
14. The Commission finds Mr. Amit Tiwari has abdicated his responsibility as First Appellate Authority by not responding to the first appeal and returning the IPO without reasons. He has also misrepresented to the Commission as CPIO and did not respond to show-cause notice sent to First Appellate Authority though he was holding that designation. The Commission strongly recommends to initiate disciplinary action against Mr. Amit Tiwari and Dr. Saurabh Dixit, within one month from the date of receipt of this Order and inform the complainant the action taken against these two officers, within 7 days from the date of filing of report by the disciplinary officer.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
CIC/MTOUR/C/2017/124436 Page 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI,
Indian Institute of Tourism and
Travel Management, Govindpuri,
Gwalior-474011, M.P.
2. Shri Rahul Mittal,
3. Shri S.P. Beck,
Joint Secretary - Admin
Central Information Commission
Room No. 505, CIC Bhawan,
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
CIC/MTOUR/C/2017/124436 Page 7