Central Information Commission
Thukar Naval Singh vs Guru Ghasidas Vishvidyalaya, Bilaspur on 20 September, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/ Second Appeal No.: CIC/GGVBP/A/2021/116177
Thakur Naval Singh .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO,
Guru Ghasidas Vishvidyalaya,RTI Cell, C.G. Koni,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495009
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates :
Date of Show-cause proceedings : 20.09.2023 Date of Show-cause order : 20.09.2023 RTI Application : 16.11.2020 filed on CPIO replied on : Not on Record First Appeal filed : 27.01.2021 on First Appellate : Not on Record Authority order Second Appeal : 13.04.2021 received on Date of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date of Order 05.08.2022 सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya Commission has initiated show-cause proceedings against the PIO.
The Commission while hearing the captioned appeal deemed it expedient to call explanation from the then PIO on account of an apparent lapse on his part to furnish information. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinafter:
"The Commission further observes that with respect to the instant RTI Application, no reply has been provided by the Respondent till date and such lackadaisical approach of the Respondent in treating the instant RTI Application is viewed adversely by the Bench and the said conduct of the Respondent public authority amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
In view of the above, the Commission deems it fit to direct the registry of this bench to issue show-cause notice under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act to Shri Abhideep Tiwari, Assistant Registrar (Admin), for not providing any reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Appellant thus failing to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and he shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act.
He is further directed to ensure that under all circumstances, his written explanation to show-cause order should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In compliance of the aforesaid directions, an explanation filed by then PIO, dated 15.9.2023 is taken on record and same is produced herein below:
As no further documents were available and the applicant was informed in person, the mistake of not sending a written reply was committed by the Public Information Officer. Thus most respectfully it is submitted that the act was not deceitful act but a human error, therefore it is requested to kindly consider and forgive the Information Officer in the case.
It is further humbly submitted that currently I am discharging the duties of Assistant Registrar and currently am the incharge of General Administration and Establishment Section of the University. The section delas in files and processing of files and related issues of nearly 500 teachers, 220 non teaching staff and 120 daily wager and contractual staff of the University. Being the sole officer of the section, presentation of files, leaves, promotion and pay fixation of these employees are being performed by me and also the task of submitting various information and replies as desired by the UGC, MoE and Parliamentary questions are being done by me. Further apart from the above I have been assigned the additional duties of the Legal Cell (include the works of contacting with the advocates, preparation of replies and submission in the appropriate forums), works of recruitment section (for faculty, non faculty and contractual staff) have also been intrusted to me apart from the other functions. In view of these additional workloads at time some issues skipped from me, but there was neither there was ill or malafide intention in not sending the timely reply. I have utmost respect to the Central Information Commission and the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner and 1 most humbly apologise for non submission of timely reply. Thereby assure that I shall give the timely replies and shall not repeat such incident in future. Therefore, without any disrespect and with all humility it is requested to kindly consider the afore mentioned submissions and close the proceedings, for which I shall be grateful to you, and oblige.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Respondent: Mr. Abhijeet Tiwari, Asst. Registrar/APIO The Respondent stated that the relevant information has already been provided to the Appellant in response to his earlier RTI Applications. Furthermore, the delay in furnishing the reply was not intentional and same was due to overload of work as he has been assigned with General Administration and Establishment Section of the University and additional duties of the Legal Cell. He tendered his unconditional apology for the delay on his part and assured to give the timely replies in future.
Decision :
Commission observes that as submitted by the Respondent the relevant information has already been furnished by the PIO. In light of the aforesaid submissions, the noticee rules out any malafide intention on his part. Commission do not find it expedient to initiate any further action against him.
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:
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.
In the facts of the present case, the Commission accepts the explanation tendered by the then PIO and finds no reason to disbelieve him. There is nothing on record to suggest that he acted malafidely or failed to exercise due diligence. The penalty proceedings are dropped. Noticee stands discharged.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514