Central Information Commission
Mr.Nishant Handa vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 July, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001010/12884Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/0001010
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Nishant Handa
76, Apna Ghar Society
Opp. M2k-cinema,
Pitampur, New Delhi-110034
Respondent : Brigadier S. K. Kaushik,
OSD to VC & Deemed PIO Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Sector-16 C, Dwarka, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 06/09/2010 PIO replied on : Not replied First Appeal filed on : 03/12/2010 First Appellate Authority order on : 09/12/2010 Second Appeal filed on : 07/02/2011 PIO reply of FAA direction : 24/02/2011 Second Appeal received on : 15/04/2011 Sl. Query Reply of PIO on 24/02/2011
1. In the Academic Year 2009-10, where Hon'ble Vice Chancellor visited various European Vice Chancellor has gone abroad. Universities in Austria, Slovak, Germany, Hungary and France between 24 May 2010 and 4 June2010.
2. Who accompanied the Vice Hon'ble Vice Chancellor visited Slovak University of Chancellor in each of the trips Agriculture in Nitra, Slovak Republic on their specific invitation to be guest speaker n the international conference "Global Economy: Challenges and Perspectives". However, it was felt beneficial to visit some more universities in European Countries to further academic collaborations.
3. The purpose of each trip and the As stated in point no. 2 above. The total expenditure was expenditure incurred on each trip. Rs.1,57,941/-; which includes travel cost, accommodation for above 9 days and DA as permitted by the Govt. of India,
4. The official University material 3 nos. of brochure was taken along with. Can be supplied during each of the trips obtained on payment of Rs.500/- each. including all brochures, profiles, leaflets. Copy of this material may also be enclosed with expenditure incurred on these trips.
5. The outcome of these trips for the Benefits of the trips are tripping in. University.
Page 1 of 5Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA orally directed the PIO to furnish the information.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information furnished by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on June 15, 2011:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Nishant Handa;
Respondent: Ms. Sunita Shiva, Public Information Officer & Dy. Registrar; Mr. Ajay Arora, SO & Deemed PIO;
"The PIO has provided the information on the person who accompanied VC which was sought by the Appellant in query-2. This information has been provided to the Appellant on 14/06/2011. The RTI application had been filed on 06/09/2010 and partial information was provided by the PIO on 24/02/2011."
Decision dated June 15, 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The information has been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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. She has further refused to obey the orders of her 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 show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her.
She will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 06 July 2011 at 3.00pm alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1)."
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on July 6, 2011: The following were present:
Respondent: Ms. Sunita Shiva, PIO & Deputy Registrar (Planning & Policy), Mr. Ajay Kumar, SO (Planning), Mr. Ajay Arora, SO (VC Secretariat) and Mr. K. S. Dabas, SO (Personnel). "The PIO has submitted written submissions to the Commission. The PIO stated that the information sought pertained to different departments within the university i.e. Vice Chancellor, Personnel Branch, General Administration Branch and Accounts. The Respondents stated that during the month of December 2010, the university campus was being shifted. The VC office was entirely responsible for ensuring that the shifting took place expeditiously and therefore, it was not possible to compile the records sought by the Appellant by the VC office. During that time, the Convocation was also scheduled and the VC office was extremely busy in preparing for the same.
The Respondents have also showed certain correspondence dated 23/11/2010 wherein the VC office has asked the PIO to request the Appellant to come for an inspection. However, the PIO admitted that this communication was not sent to the Appellant. The PIO admitted that prior to 24/02/2011, no Page 2 of 5 intimation/ information was sent to the Appellant regarding his RTI application dated 06/09/2010. In compliance with the order of the FAA, information was sent to the Appellant on 24/02/2011.
The PIO has given written submission in which she has clearly stated that the RTI application received on 06/09/2010 was forwarded on 09/09/2010 to JR(PER), PS to VC and Controller of Finance. JR(PER) informed the PIO on 24/09/2010 that the information would be with the VC's Secretariat. The Controller of Finance also informed the PIO on 21/09/2010 that the information would be available with the VC Secretariat. The PIO issued a reminder on 10/11/2010 but the PS to VC informed on 23/11/2010 that the Appellant should be asked to inspect the files. In the mean time the Appellant had filed the First Appeal and the FAA had ordered on 16/12/2010 that OSD to VC should provide the information to the queries raised by the Appellant. Thus the FAA had clearly come to the conclusion that the information sought by the Appellant could be provided and there was not need to ask the Appellant to inspect the records. It also appears that the further information provided in June was obtained from Incharge (Personnel) Colonel Bedekar.
The Commission asked the PS to VC Mr. Ajay Arora why he had not provided the information within 30 days of receiving the RTI application on 09/09/2010. Mr. Ajay Arora states that he was verbally instructed by the OSD to VC Brigadier S. K. Kaushik about what information to give and that he was acting on the instructions of Brigadier S. K. Kaushik. In view of this the Commission considers it necessary to issue a showcause notice to Brigadier S. K. Kaushik to show cause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on him for the delay in providing the information. After discussing with the respondents the Commission does not see any reasons for the delay in providing the information. The RTI application had been filed on 06/09/2010 and the information should have been provided to the Appellant before 06/10/2010. Instead the information was only provided to the Appellant on 24/02/2011 for query-2 & 4 and further information was provided to the Appellant after the order of the Commission on 14/06/2011. The Commission directs Brigadier S. K. Kaushik, Incharge (Personnel) Colonel Bedekar and Mr. Ajay Arora to present themselves before the Commission on 19 July 2011 at 12.30PM."
Adjunct Decision dated July 6, 2011:
"The Commission directs Brigadier S. K. Kaushik, Incharge (Personnel) Colonel Bedekar and Mr. Ajay Arora to appear before the Commission on 19 July 2011 at 12.30PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on them."
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on 19 July 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent: Ms. Sunita Shiva, PIO & Deputy Registrar (Planning & Policy), Mr. Ajay Arora, PS to VC (VC Secretariat), Brigadier S. K. Kaushik, OSD to VC; Colonel Bedekar, Incharge (Personnel);
Colonel Bedekar, Incharge (personnel) states that he was employed by the University only on 11/11/2010 and took chare of the Personnel department on 01/12/2010. He had no knowledge of the RTI application and learnt of this only on 14/06/2011 and provided the information on the same day. It is evident that some of the information was with the VC Secretariat where the RTI application had reached on 09/09/2010. The information should have been provided to the Appellant before 06/10/2010 instead the information was provided only on 24/02/2011 i.e. after a delay of over 130 days. Brigadier S. K. Kaushik, OSD to VC has given his written submissions in which he has stated that the PS to VC that the appellant should be called to inspect the records. The FAA in his decision on 16/12/2010 has recorded that, "the officer on special duty of VC may provide the information to the queries raised by the Appellant to the PIO for onward information to the Appellant within 03 weeks of this order." Thus even the FAA had not seen the reason to call the appellant for an inspection of the relevant files. The FAA's order was issued on 16/12/2010 directing that information should be provided to the Appellant within 03 weeks. This order was also not complied with. The VC Secretariat claims it never received the order given by the FAA. All the respondents are stating that the University's administration and inter departmental communication is extremely poor. The Commission hopes that the Vice Chancellor would take note of this and ensure that the administration and inter departmental communication is of a minimum standard where the University can function Page 3 of 5 efficiently. The information sought by the appellant could certainly have been provided very easily. The information provided on 24/02/2011 was of one page and the part of the information subsequently provided in June 2011 was of two pages. Thus the claim that the information sought was voluminous and that the appellant was required to come for the inspection was not correct. Brigadier S. K. Kaushik, OSD to VC is claiming that the information was available with other branches; - he also claims that he felt that the appellant should come and inspect the records at the VC Secretariat. If information was not available with VC Secretariat what inspection was proposed to be offered to the Appellant is not known.
The Commission has come to the conclusion after looking at the written submission and the verbal submissions of the respondent that it appears the responsibility for not providing the information was of Brigadier S. K. Kaushik, OSD to VC & Deemed PIO.
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.
Sine the delay in providing the information was for over 100 days, the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Brigadier S. K. Kaushik, OSD to VC & Deemed PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Page 4 of 5Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Brigadier S. K. Kaushik, OSD to VC & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Brigadier S. K. Kaushik `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Vice Chancellor, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University is directed to recover the amount of `25000/- from the salary of Brigadier S. K. Kaushik 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 `5000/ per month every month from the salary of Brigadier S. K. Kaushik and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from August 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of December, 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 July 19, 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AA) Copies to:
1- Vice Chancellor
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
Sector-16 C, Dwarka,
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Ms. Sunita Shiva
Public Information Officer & Dy. Registrar
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
Sector-16 C, Dwarka,
New Delhi
Page 5 of 5