Central Information Commission
Padmanaban vs Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 6 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसचू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCECO/C/2022/654639
PADMANABAN ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Assistant Commissioner, O/o Commissioner
of Central Excise, Madurai, RTI Cell,
No. 4, Lal Bahadur Shastri Road,
Revenue Buildings, B B Kulam, Madurai,
Tamil Nadu-625002. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/06/2023
Date of Decision : 05/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01/08/2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 06/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint dated : 11/10/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2022 seeking the following information:
1
"I bring to your attention the Order - In - Original No. 01/2013 issued under File C.No.11/10-A/3/2006-Vig dated 22.11.2013 by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai, wherein I was dismissed from Service, I have demanded more than 20 times or more to provide me with a digital copy of the order for me to verify the date of preparation of the order. Various reasons were given, and you have deliberately denied me the information over the past eight years. The order was dated 22-11-2013 whereas the real date of preparation I am sure was 30-11- 2013 and simply predated to show it as an order prepared prior to the RTI information sought by me on 28-11-2013 in which I demanded various of my rights restored and the relevant information furnished. The dismissal order was prepared out of vengeance to silence me, and your denial of the information is a clear indication of my charges on the affirmative.
I am now requiring you to furnish all the names of officers who were in charge as CPIO and Appellant Authority from 2013 who denied me the information sought on the above subject and denied me the acquiring of vital digital evidence to appeal my case of dismissal.
As a person who has completed the course of Law and I am well versed in the intricacies of Law, I have now proposed to proceed with my appeal in the Honorable court of appropriate Jurisdiction.
There is an abject failure on the part of all the officers to be independent as required under RTI and not to be departmental officers defending someone who has wronged me in dismissing me from Service.
I need the Name of the officer who dismissed me from Service and designation of his present position in the department along with my copy of dismissal order.
I demand the submission of the digital record to be displayed to me now and to keep it very safe for me to require you to furnish to the court of law if need arises.
The subject digital record is a continuing contentious issue that is repeatedly being demanded from my end and is being deliberately denied at your end to defend who ever prepared the record to silence me for seeking rightful information under RTI regarding my service matters.
As I am appealing my dismissal and seeking reinstatement from my service, I need this record to be furnished as this is about my life and liberty.2
I am certain this will be provided, and all the information sought under this request will be provided without further denial. I need all the names of officers who denied me this information over the span of the last eight years.
You know the misery I underwent due to my incarceration and denial of even the Subsistence allowance and my life was devastated without any lawful reason as there was no Central Government Notification under Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act prohibiting red sanders.
The Director General of Foreign Trade has erred in issuing a Policy under Section 5 of FT(D&R) for prohibition of Red Sanders whereas it is the duty of Central Government to issue a notification for prohibition under Section 3 of the said Act. When requiring The DGFT to furnish the notification for the past eight years even they have gone silent even the Office of the Customs, Tuticorin have not been able to reply and furnish me the required information.
I need a copy of the notification from your end to be furnished on prohibition of red sanders which was the very basis of the dismissal and my suffering even without me committing any unlawful activity and to let me know if the Disciplinary Authority had this Prohibition notification while deciding my dismissal.
I need the copy of the Appellate Authority under RTI The Joint Commissioners order against my appeal under RTI in the year 2020 wherein he has rejected my appeal on the ground that I am repeatedly requesting the same information and wasting the department's time. I am doing so to make it a point that denying information from your side is not repetition of work and rejecting on that ground is highly objectionable. I have made several attempts to insist and to bring to light the defiant stand of all the RTI officers in protecting one of the officers while deserting another just because of a hierarchical ranking."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference.3
Respondent: Raghunathan, CPIO present through video-conference.
The Complainant while narrating the factual contents of RTI Application (as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs) invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 21.05.2023 wherein he inter alia stating as under -
".....It is humbly requested with humility to kindly require the CPIO to provide me with attested copies of all the communications between me and the CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai, pertaining to the RTI requests made from the year 2013 to till date, both requests and replies. This would facilitate me to effectively present my case as few of the RTI information are missing or misplaced at my end. I have sought these attested copies vide RTI request registration number CEXCH/R/E/23/00003 received by the CPIO on 04-01-2023 but was dismissed as usual.
The CPIO, RTI is effectively thwarting all my efforts to seek my reinstatement by refusing to provide the RTI copies. Unless the above request is complied with by the CPIO before the hearing date fixed on 05-06- 2023 I may not be in a position to defend my case effectively. The Honorable Commissioner may be pleased to order the copies to be provided at the earliest and I shall collect it in person on payment of the required fee to avoid delay in transmission by post...."
The Complainant further emphasized on the fact that he has filed as many as 20 RTI Applications till date with the Respondent; however, as per their alleged regular habit, the CPIO failed to reply to any of his RTI Applications.
The CPIO submitted that instant RTI Application as also the first Appeal of the Complainant were never received in his office; which is due to the fact that the address mentioned by the Complainant in his RTI application does not exists. He further added that the impugned RTI Application was received at their end along with the hearing notice and now he volunteered to provide a reply to the Complainant.
In response to submissions of CPIO, the Complainant interjected to contest that his RTI Application was filed with the O/o Central Excise, Zonal office of Coimbatore and from there, it has been transferred to the O/o Central Excise, Madurai.4
Decision The Commission at the outset, considering the submissions of the CPIO hereby directs him to file an affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Complainant (free of cost) deposing categorically that impugned RTI Application as also the First Appeal were not received at his office either through post or email. The said affidavit should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Nonetheless, the claim for relief of information cannot be applied in this case being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, as the said provision does not envisage an order of relief. In this regard, the Commission places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in the matter of Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:
"...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 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."
xxx "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."5
xxx "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...."
Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 6