Central Information Commission
Dinesh Kumar vs Dr. R. M. L. Hospital,New Delhi on 16 November, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DRMLD/A/2018/109653
Date of Hearing : 31.05.2018
Date of Decision : 20.08.2018
Date of Hearing (Show Cause) : 13.09.2018
Date of Decision (Show Cause) : 13.09.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar
Respondent : PIO
Post Graduate Institute of
Medical Education & Research
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital
Through:-
Dr. Sunil Saxena, PIO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2017
PIO replied on :
First Appeal filed on : 12.12.2017
First Appellate Order on : 27.12.2017
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 13.02.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant is aggrieved over denial of information and the non- compliance of the First Appellate Authority whereby certain information was directed to be furnished to the appellant. It would be worthwhile to narrate the chronological factual backdrop of the matter in hand.
2. The appellant states to have submitted a representation dated 17.03.2017. Since as per the appellant the representation was not followed unto its logical end, he was constrained to file the present RTI application. The RTI application dated 20.10.2017 reads as:
Sir, undersigned vide representation dated 17.03.2017 had inter- alia requested the then Medical Superintendent to designate an unbiased competent officer to record my future APAR in place of Dr. (Prof.) T.P. Yadav. HOD Department of Pediatrics as he was totally biased towards me for the reasons best known to him. I came to know that a committee was constituted to consider my request and that committee has submitted its recommendation in my favour. In view of it, I seek the following documents:
I. A copy of constitution of Committee to consider my request.
II. A copy of corresponding noting related to constitution of Committee.
III. A copy of report submitted by the committee and IV. A copy of decision taken by the competent authority on the report submitted by the Committee.
V. Inspection of the concerned file with copy of the file pages.
3. Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant alleges that he was being unduly targeted by his APAR initiating authority i.e. HOD Dept. of Paediatrics at Dr. R.M.L. Hospital Delhi. He submits that since due to professional rivalry, his career was being allegedly spoiled by APAR recording officer, hence he was constrained to move a representation addressed to the Medical Supdt. Dr. RML Hospital seeking replacement of his APAR Reporting Officer. In this context, he submits that the PIO deliberately did not reply to the RTI application in the first instance. He alleges that the direction of FAA also proved to be futile as no reply was furnished to him despite the FAO. He draws attention of the Commission towards FAA orders. The same reads as :
An appeal dated 12.12.2017 has been received from Dr. Dinesh Yadav on 23.12.2017 in the office of undersigned. The ground for appeal by the appellant is non receipt of information to his RTI daterdf 20.10.2017. On examination of relevant records it was fouind that the appellant had not been provided information to his RTI till the date of appeal. As considerable time has passed the concerned CPIO (Deputy Director Administration, Dr. RMLH, New Delhi in this case) is hereby directed to act immediately on this case by providing information to the appellant with intimation to the undersigned.
Sd/-
Dr. A.K.Sen, Principal Consultant & Appellate Authority 27.12.2017
4. Citing the aforesaid order, the appellant complains non compliance. He alleges that information was kept from him under a conspiracy which not only led to various unfounded adverse remarks recorded in his APAR as well as harassment at work place. He submits that had the information been furnished to him, he could have approached the competent court/tribunal for redressal of his grievances. On the other hand, the PIO Dr. RML Hospital has nothing to submit in justification of the apparent denial of information and the non-compliance of FAA order.
5. The Commission cannot adjudicate upon the reasons which prevented the dissemination of information in the present case, but it is clear that something unusual crept in the present case. It seems quite unobvious that a faculty member/Sr. Doctor of the respondent hospital was not only denied information by the PIO once but twice, despite the direction of First Appellate Authority. It has been almost 7 months since the RTI application was filed and absolutely no reason has come on record which justifies the omission on the part of PIO. Even today the PIO is clueless. All that is argued by PIO is that the file containing representation made by the appellant is untraceable.
6. Non traceability of files is not an exception laid down under the RTI Act, 2005. There is nothing on record to suggest that the PIO acted diligently upon receipt of RTI application. If the record was untraceable, the PIO could have replied factually and endeavoured to locate the file. However, he chose to remain a mute spectator. The omission of PIO aggravated since he neither chose to supply the relevant facts before the FAA nor complied with FAO.
7. Accordingly the present PIO is directed to furnish information against all the queries within one week of receipt of this order.
8. The then PIO who received the RTI application and failed to comply with the FAO is prima facie guilty of causing obstruction of flow of information.
He owes an explanation to the Commission as well as the appellant for his omission, which, the appellant alleges to be design. However, the Commission cannot attribute malice to the then PIO without affording him/her a fair chance to explain his/her conduct.
9. Let a Show Cause u/s 20 of the RTI Act for award of maximum penalty as well as recommendation of Departmental action be issued to the then PIO. The appellant has also sought award of adequate compensation in the course of hearing. However, he has not clarified as to what precise detriment he has suffered due to non-disclosure of information and hence, the Commission also grants the appellant an opportunity to file a written submission in this regard with a copy to the respondent within one week of receipt of this order, if he so desires to press for relief of compensation.
10. List for further hearing on award of compensation as well as show cause hearing on 13.09.2018 The present PIO shall also report compliance of the present interim direction qua furnishing of information sought on the date of hearing.
PENALTY PROCEEDIGS UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE RTI ACT 2005
11. In terms of the decision dated 09.07.2018, a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI was issued to the then PIO, Shri Nutan Mehta for having failed to reply the RTI application. A reply alongwith supporting documents has been submitted by the noticee. The contention of noticee is that the files concerned were missing and besides issuing lookout circulars, a FIR was also lodged. He submits that he had no intent to hide any information and penal action against him would render him liable for circumstances beyond his control.
12. The Commission has no reason to disbelieve the noticee/PIO. The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read 'malafide' on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:
13. .....
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. .....
14. The Commission does not find any reason to proceed with the penal proceedings wherein no apparent malafide on part of the notice is established. However, he is cautioned to exercise due diligence in future while discharging duties as PIO. Information sought is already furnished to the appellant. Taking a lenient and reformatory view, the noticee is discharged. The appeal is disposed of.
15. File to be consigned to record room (Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer