Central Information Commission
Siddharth vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 17 October, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
Baba Gangnath Marg, Room No. 416,
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DSSSB/A/2017/154364
F. No.CIC/SA/A/2016/901806
Date of Hearing : 20.06.2017
Date of Decision : 20.06.2017
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 10.08.2017, 30.11.2017
Date of Decision : 31.08.2017, 07.12.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Siddharth Handa
Respondent : Dy. Secretary, DSSSB, GNCTD
Through: Sh. Abdul Matin
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.09.2015
PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 28.01.2016
First Appellate Order on : 07.04.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 23.06.2016
Show Cause Decision
Background of the case:
CIC/DSSSB/A/2017/154364 CIC/SA/A/2016/901806 Vide RTI application dated 07.09.2015 addressed to PIO, Dy. Secretary, DSSSB, the appellant sought information regarding spelling correction of his name „SIDDHARTH MANDA instead of SIDDHARTH HANDA". In this respect the appellant sought following information:-
1. Status of my request.
2. Whether my name is rectified by DSSSB or not?
3. If not please give reason behind it.
4. How much time will be taken to correct my name?
5. Shall the rectification in my name would be done before sending the dossiers to User Department?Page 1 of 17
Having not received any information from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 07.04.2016 informed that DS(CC-II) is only the link officer, he will check the record and reply to the RTI application within 15 days. Further the Sr. SA(IT) is directed to make necessary correction in the data in the master record and also of other such representations which are pending with them to remove inconsistency at nay future date, after taking approval of the competent authority. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties have appeared during the hearing and perusal of the chronological sequence of events reveal as follows:
May 2012: The Appellant had applied for the post of JE(E&M) in SC category and submitted relevant supporting documents and certificates indicating his correct name as "Siddharth Handa" and his Father‟s name as "Surender Mohan".
August 2014: DSSB published list of applicants, with incorrect details pertaining to the applicant. Applicant and his father‟s names were incorrectly shown as "Siddharth Manda" and "Surendra Mohan" respectively.
In terms of the Circular of DSSSB, the applicant approached the DSSSB and submitted a representation for rectification of the particulars alongwith his certificates bearing correct name.
Sep-Oct 2014: While applying for Online Application Registration System, the applicant found once again that his name and his father‟s name had not been rectified by the Respondent in their system. Dec 2014: DSSSB issued admit card with the incorrect names for examination to be held on 28.12.2014. Despite the applicant‟s request once again, DSSSB took no action.
28.12.2014: The applicant appeared in the examination submitting written clarification about rectification of names alongwith photocopies of supporting documents. He entered actual and correct names of himself and his father in the OMR answer sheet.
March 2015: The applicant qualified the written test with 61.25% marks out of 97 and was shortlisted for interview stage. Interview conducted on 28.03.2015 was duly attended by the applicant, who once again reiterated the grievance about incorrect names and was assured that the rectification would be done at the final merit list. 26.08.2015: DSSSB declared result in which the applicant was selected, but his name still featured the spelling mistake.
Page 2 of 1729.08.2015: Applicant sent another representation for rectification of the particulars alongwith supporting documents, to the Chairman, DSSSB.
02.09.2015: Applicant sent yet another representation for rectification of name/s.
Only after filing of the RTI application on 07.09.2015, the applicant received response on 10.11.2015 from the Dy. Sec.(Interview Cell) for clarification in respect of names. Despite the applicant visiting the Respondents and submission of clarification, as sought on 16.11.2015, there was no rectification of the records.
Meanwhile the applicant filed First Appeal on 03.02.2016 pursuant to which on 04.04.2016, the FAA called applicant to attend a hearing. Vide a subsequent order dated 07.04.2016, the FAA held as follows:
"......It is sad that none of the branch including RTI branch had made effort to reply to the information sought by the appellant but all the branches has only tried to throw away the application to other branches. The PIO and DS CC-II were directed to correct the name and father‟s name of the Appellant and send dossier file and reply to the RTI application within 15 days.
09.05.2016: Applicant submitted another request to Secy., DSSSB 17.05.2016: Applicant sent his grievances through Public Grievance Management system to Secretary, DSSSB.
The PIO and DS CC-II did not comply with the order of the FAA/Secretary, DSSSB, but Chairman, DSSSB approved the rectification of names in December 2015. The applicant has submitted that due to delay in correction of his particulars by DSSSB, he could join service only on 15.09.2016, while other successful candidates who were his contemporaries had joined in November 2015. Thus on account of the inaction and inefficiency of the Respondent, the applicant had to suffer financial loss of approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month for a period of atleast eight to nine months, as well as suffer the loss of seniority over the same period. The Respondent who appeared for the hearing was clueless about the delay and consequential detriment suffered by the applicant.
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission by order dated 20.06.2017 held as follows:
"....the entire sequence of events in which a bright and successful candidate despite being selected for the job was meted out such below par treatment. An error on the part of the Respondent took two years for the DSSSB to rectify, meanwhile causing unfair and unjust amount of Page 3 of 17 mental agony and pecuniary loss to the applicant. The PIO and DS CC- II has not only denied information and justice to the applicant but also acted in complete contravention and violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and in contempt of the orders of the FAA. Despite the approval of Chairman, DSSSB for carrying out the rectification of records in December 2015, the needful was done only in August 2016. In fact, the concerned PIO did not even bother to appear before the Commission and explain the cause of such inordinate delay in taking remedial measure. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice upon the PIO/Dy. Secretary, CC-II, to be served through Sh. Abdul Matin, present during the hearing. Sh. Matin should ensure that the SCN is served upon the Noticee to the CPIO concerned who received the RTI application and was supposed to furnish information. Information of notice having been served on the CPIO by name, will be intimated by Sh. Abdul Matin to the Commission within two weeks. The Noticee is directed to explain why penalty to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him for causing deliberate obstruction to the flow of information and also explain why a compensation to the tune of Rupees Three Lacs should not be awarded to the applicant, by the DSSSB. Response to the Show Cause and compensation notice, should reach the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order. Registry is directed to schedule hearing of the matter in normal course. ..."
Show Cause Hearing I: 10.08.2017
1. The Commission is in receipt of a communication dated 07.08.2017 from the then PIO, DSSSB explaining as follows:
"....It is further submitted that since the information of the said RTI was not available in the office of PIO, DSSSB and Dy. Secretary CC II Branch/Deemed PIO, DSSSB was unable to supply the information of the said RTI to the then PIO for onward transmission to the applicant, therefore, the reply of the said RTI could not be sent to the applicant. The information was available with the then Dy. Secretary Scrutiny/IT/CC-II Branch, therefore, it was the responsibility of the then Dy. Secretary Scrutiny/IT/CC-II Branch, DSSSB to send the reply of the said RTI in RTI branch for onward transmission to the applicant.
2. Another communication dated 09.08.2017 has been received from Sh.
A K Meena, the then Sr. System Analyst (IT Branch) stating as follows:
"...1. PIO, DSSSB marked RTI application of Sh. Siddharth Handa to Scrutiny and IT Branch on 07.09.2015 with mention to furnish the requisite information asked by the applicant so that requisite information may be furnished to the applicant within the stipulated period of 30 days. Being IT Branch incharge I sent reply/information to PIO, DSSSB on Page 4 of 17 10.09.2015 vide letter No.F.1(50)/DSSSB/IT/2013-14/425 dated 10.09.2015 (copy enclosed).
2. Secondly, this is to inform you that during the month of September 2015 when the original RTI was filled by the applicant, as per the record undersigned was not PIO, DSSSB for the Board.
3. Thirdly, as per the decision taken in the meeting held on 15.07.2015 under chairmanship of Chairman, DSSSB. "Wherein it was decided that the corrections in OARS (Online Application Registration System) may be done only in the field of Name, Father Name and Gender for registered candidates. The corrected field would be applicable only for those post codes where no exam related process has taken place after registration. The Scrutiny Branch will receive such type of application from candidates and will get competent approval and forward the approved application to IT Branch to make the correction" (MOM copy enclosed). Chairman, DSSSB also stated in F.1(12)Scty./DSSSB/2015 that no changes can be made in the primary data as decided in the meeting. Changes can be made for the posts at the time of final selection of the candidates if they come in the zone of consideration manually by CC-I/II Branch.
......................................................................................
4. In view of above para 3, Dy. Secretary CC II informed the correction in name field of candidate i.e. Siddharth Handa vide corrigendum No.F.1(267)/CC-II/DSSSB/2015/729-37 dated 26.07.2016 with request to Dy. Secretary (P&P) DSSSB in duplicate for information to the User Department under intimation to CC-II.
3. The PIO/DS-CC-II has also submitted his detailed written explanation dated 10.08.2017 which provides background of the appellant‟s case, as follows:
"....2. (The Board had invited manual application forms in 2012 for selection to post of Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) under post code 14/12/ vide advertisement No.02/112 with closing date as 15.06.2012.
3. In the end of year 2012 Board had streamlined the procedure for selection to the post and had introduced the facility for the candidates to apply the application form for the post code advertised by the Board in online mode. Simultaneously, Board also switched for providing the e-admit card to the candidates for their examination. The Board had Page 5 of 17 received the manual application forms for the vacancies advertised vide advertisement No.-02/2012, therefore a separate instructions were issued to concerned applicants vide Board's Notice dated 12.08.2014, 07.10.2014, 13.10.2014, 21.10.2014 to get themselves online registered with the Board by uploading their details in OARS module. These notices were communicated to the concerned candidates through the Board's website.
4.......................................................................................
5. The applicant Siddharth Handa (name mentioned as Siddharth Manda) having Roll No.60000048 was shortlisted for the interview. He was called for the interview on 25.03.2015. The applicant has signed the examination related documents on the day of interview wherein his name was mentioned as Siddharth Manda against Roll No. 60000048. The marks of the interview were declared by the Board on 08.04.2015. Wherein the applicant had scored 30.83 marks out of maximum 50. In the said notice dated 08.04.2015 also the name of the applicant was mentioned as Siddharth Manda.
6. As per the documents provided by the concerned branches of the Board who had conducted the interview the CC-II branch had processed the result for the post code 14/12 and declared the final result on 26.08.2015. The details of the candidates as have been provided to the branch through interview branch was taken into consideration for preparing the said result. The applicant was selected to the post under SC category as per his merit.
7......................................................................................
8. The applicant Siddharth Handa vide his representation dated 01.09.2015 had represented that there was spelling error in his name.
9. ............Board had switched over to the online application forms since 2012....the application forms which were earlier received in manual mode were got digitalized from the candidate through OARS module. During digitalization the Board had provided basic details such as Name, Date of Birth, Category etc. as got entered from the respective manual application forms. The list of the candidates along with their basic details was prepared by the then agency manning the manual application forms. The Board do not have the manual application forms obtained vide advertisement No. 02/12 due to a dispute with the then agency manning the manual Page 6 of 17 application forms. The Board had to rely the information available along with the OARS details furnished by the candidates for processing their result. As per OARS form furnished by the applicant his name was mentioned as "Siddharth Manda" instead of Siddharth Handa..
10. P&P branch vide their UO letter dated 12.10.2015 had returned the 05 dossiers including the dossier of Siddharth Handa with the following discrepancies noticed in their respective dossier. The details are as under:
S. No. Name Roll No. Remarks ............................................................................
.........................................................................
4. Siddharth Manda 6000008 As per certificate enclosed his name is Siddharth Handa
11. ...............................................................................
12. Since the Board was at initial stages of automation as such the Board was not having much clarity how to correct the particulars of the candidate which have been mentioned in the online data. Any corrections to the data of the candidate not simultaneously correcting the same in online data may have some repercussions. The Board was using only online data for all practical purposes and also indicating the same in public domain. As such all the branches were not having clarity at which level the same could be corrected.
13. The scrutiny branch vide their note dated 29.02.2016 have reported that the offline applications of the post code 14/12 are not available with them. Therefore, suggested that either Interview Cell that prepared the dossier of the candidate or the CC-II branch that had declared the result may issue corrigendum regarding correction of the name of the candidates for the post of JE(E&M) under post code 14/12.
14. The said matter was also examined by the I.T Branch on 07.03.2016 wherein it was informed that it was decided in Board meeting held on 16.07.2015, merely a Name, Father Name & Gender of applicant should be changed in OARS (correction module) only for those post codes for which examination have yet be conducted and for remaining other post codes the corrections should be done by the result processing Branch itself.
Page 7 of 1715. Since, none of the branches other than I.T. was having the criteria for correction in the data of the candidates. As such the branch could not initiate the process for amendment until March, 2016. ...............................
16. During the intervening period the applicant had filed an RTI on 07.09.2015 seeking the status of his application dated 02.09.2015 for rectification of his particular.
17. As on 07.09.2015 Sh. Subhash Chand, the then Deputy Secretary was PIO of the Board as a whole. The Deputy Secretary of branch incharges were deemed PIO. The applications received by PIO of the Board were forwarded to Deputy Secretary Scrutiny and I.T Branch for providing the requisite information.
18. The Scrutiny Branch vide their endorsement dated 14.09.2015 has forwarded the RTI to CC-II branch.
19. ........................................................
20. During the intervening period the applicant had also approached National Commission for Schedule Caste regarding redressal of his same grievance. The Commission was informed vide Board's letter dated 29.07.2016 the brief background of the case detailing the reasons for not able to finalize his grievances immediately after it came to notice in the month of October, 2015 and was informed that the corrective action had already been taken by the Board on 26.07.2016. The Commission in its hearing on 31.08.2016 had considered the Board's circumstances and was please to close the matter.
21 & 22.......................................................
23. It may be added here that the matter for processing the result for the 3 post codes....was very sensitive...............
24. The work of declaration of a result is a very confidential and sensitive matter and any mistake even intentionally is viewed seriously by the Board and even invites lot of court cases and other related issues. As such the Board takes very precautious, vigilant, careful steps to handle any issues related to results including updating the master data of the post code even after the declaration of the result.
25. Since the Board was very much engaged in finding the solution for redressing the grievances of the five candidates including the applicants for updation of the data which was actively in consideration. As such before finalising the issue the Page 8 of 17 branch was unable to inform the status to the applicant in response to his RTI. This matter may also be considered in the order of FAA wherein the emphasis was made for redressing the grievances.
26. During that period i.e. w.e.f. Nov 2015 to July 2016, that is a short period of about 07 months, 05 Chairmen were transferred/posted in DSSSB which also affected the final decision taken... "
4. The PIO/DS-CC-II has further pointed out by another letter dated 10.08.2017 that there have been number of transfer/s in the interim period and has provided the details as follows:
S. Name Period to which served as
No. PIO/Dy. Secretary in CC-
II Branch
1. Sh. Vijay Kardam Aug 2015 - 19.10.2015
2. Sh. S P Tyagi 09.10.2015 - 02.11.2015
[Addl. Charge]
03.11.2015 - 31.07.2016
[Full fledged charge]
3. Sh. Rajesh Bhatia 01.08.2016 - 30.07.2017
4. Sh. Ajit Kumar 31.07.2017 - till date
Decision: 31.08.2017
The submissions of the two officials viz. 1) the then PIO, DSSSB and 2) the then Sr. System Analyst (IT Branch) indicate clearly the following:
1) It was the responsibility of the then Dy. Secretary Scrutiny/IT/CC-II Branch, DSSSB to send the reply of the said RTI in RTI branch for onward transmission to the applicant.
2) Changes can be made for the posts at the time of final selection of the candidates if they come in the zone of consideration manually by CC-I/II Branch Thus the role and responsibility of the then Dy. Secretary Scrutiny/CC-II Branch, DSSSB is unmistakable, in this case. The response of the current PIO, DS, CC-II takes us through the background of the case but fails to address the prime issue as to what prevented the then PIO from responding to the RTI application and even complying with the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the FAA. The write-up dated 10.08.2017 also does not explain the cause of delay of eight/nine months, (from December 2015 to August 2016) between the approval of Chairman, DSSSB for carrying out the rectification of records in December 2015 till July 2016 when the Applicant was finally Page 9 of 17 informed about the rectification of the errors and he was able to join service on 15.09.2016.
The table above indicates that Sh. Vijay Kardam and Sh. S P Tyagi held office during the relevant period when the RTI application dated 07.09.2015 was filed and no response was furnished. The FAA‟s order dated 07.04.2016 was ignored, defied and violated by Sh. S P Tyagi, the then PIO. Hence, the culpability of the violation of RTI Act lies on Sh. Vijay Kardam and Sh. S P Tyagi and Registry of this Bench is accordingly directed to issue Show Cause Notices to be served upon Sh. Vijay Kardam and Sh. S P Tyagi, to be served through Sh. Ajit Kumar - current PIO/DS, CC-II Branch, DSSSB. It is made clear that reply to the Show Cause should be received in the Commission atleast one week prior to the Show Cause hearing, failing which the same shall not be taken on record. The current PIO is once again granted time to explain why a compensation to the tune of Rupees Three Lacs should not be awarded to the applicant, by the DSSSB. In the event no explanation is received, the Commission shall decide the issue about grant of compensation on the next date of hearing.
Show Cause Hearing II: 30.11.2017
1. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Commission, some written submissions have been received from the Noticees, which are discussed hereunder.
2. Sh. Bijai Kardam, the then PIO/Dy. Secretary in CC-II Branch vide his letter dated 04.10.2017 has submitted as follows:
1. I was in-charge of CC-II Branch of DSSSB for a short period of time i.e. 10.08.2015 to 08.10.2015. Time and again, it was emphasized in all Board meetings to expedite processing of pending results.
2. The CC-II Branch processes results for various Post Codes based upon the data provided by the Scrutiny Branch/Interview Cell/IT Branch etc. Based upon the data provided by the concerned branches, result for the long pending post of JE (E&M) DJB was processed and result declared vide Result Notice No. 334 dt 26.08.2015 (Copy attached as Annex-I) after getting prior approvals from the Competent Authority.
3. As a follow up action of declaring results, Dossiers of all selected candidates were sent to P & P Branch, DSSSB on dated 15.09.2015 for forwarding them to the user department ie DJB for further necessary action (Copy attached as Annex-II).
4. The RTI Application dated 07.09.2015 of Sh. Siddhartha Handa, vide RTI ID: 23580 was forwarded by the Scrutiny Cell to CC-II Branch and same was received in CC-II on dated 16.09.2015 (Copy attached as Annex-III).
5. It is more than two years since I was posted in CC-II Branch and I have no information available with me for that period. To submit a proper reply of the SCN I need copies of documents relating to this RTI Page 10 of 17 ie action taken after receipt of this RTI. So, I requested Dy. Secy/PIO, CC-II vide my letter dated 20.09.2017 to provide me copies of all documents relating to this RTI Application dated 07.09.2015 particularly the action taken after receipt of this RTI application (Copy attached as Annex-IV). But, till date no reply is received from the Dy. Secy/PIO, CC-II.
6. As per SCN, the reply was to be submitted by 28.09.2015 but it was not proper to submit incomplete reply due to the fact that I have not received any information from Dy. Secy/PIO, CC-II. We have worked hard to do the pending work with all the good intentions and it seems beyond comprehension that one RTI application is left unattended/un- replied.
7. So, I requested the then Office Superintendent/APIO, CC-II Sh.
Chaman Singh vide my letter dated 29.09.2017 (Copy attached as Annex-V) to provide/ arrange copies of documents of action taken o this RTI application.
8. Sh. Chaman Singh (now retired), the then Office Superintendent/ APIO, CC-II, informed vide his letter dated 04.10.2017 that RTI application vide RTI ID: 23580 was forwarded by the Scrutiny Branch and received in CC-II Branch on dated 16.09.2015. This RTI application was returned in original to the PIO-RTI Cell on dated 21.09.2015 for further necessary action at their end as the concerned Dossiers were already sent to the P & P Branch for onward forwarding to the user department i.e. DJB (Copy attached as Annex-VI).
9. It is amply clear from the copy of CC-II Branch register as given in the Annex-VI that the RTI application (ID: 23580 received on dated 16.09.2015 was sent to PIO-RTI and the allegation of 21.09.2015. So, there was no delay in giving reply to PIO-RTI and the allegation of obstruction in flow of information is factually not correct.
10. Since I was in-charge of CC-II Branch till only 08.10.2015 and was transferred out of Department, I am not aware of filling of Appeal before First Appeal Authority and other proceedings thereafter.
3. Apart from the above submission, the Noticee, Sh. Bijai Kardam has further submitted another letter dated 29.11.2017, stating as follows:
1. As the Dy. Secy/PIO of CC-II Branch-DSSSB till date has not provided any information/document as required by my letter dated 20.09.2017 (Copy attached as Annex-I) I requested the then Office Superintendent/APIO, CC-II Sh. Chaman Singh (now retd.) vide my letter dated 29.09.2017 (copy attached as Annex-II) to provide/ arrange copies of documents of action taken on this RTI application.
Sh. Chaman Singh has informed vide his letter dated 04.10.2017 (Copy attached as Annex-III) that the RTI Application vide RTI ID:
23580 was forwarded by the Scrutiny Branch and received in CC-II Branch on dated 16.09.2015. This RTI application was returned in original to the PIO-RTI Cell on dated 21.09.2015 for further necessary action at their end as the concerned Dossiers Page 11 of 17 were already sent to the P & P Branch for onward forwarding to the user department i.e. DJB.
2. To further corroborate the written statement of then Office Superintendent/APIO, CC-II Sh. Chaman Singh (now retd), vide my letter dated 10.11.2017 (Copy attached as annex-IV) I requested the then Dealing Assistant/LDC Ms. Prem Lata to provide/ arrange copies of all related documents w.r.t the receipt and dispatch of this RTI ID: 23580 as she was handling the work of receiving and dispatch of all CC-II dak.
3. In her reply dated 15.11.2017 (Copy attached as Annex-V) Ms. Prem Lata, the then Dealing Assistant/ LDC has informed that this RTI ID:23580 forwarded by the Scrutiny Branch was recd in CC-II Branch on dated 16.09.2015 and returned to the PIO-RTI Cell on dated 21.09.2017.
4. The aforementioned submissions sent by the then PIO, DS/CC-II are further supported by his oral submissions during the hearing held on 30.11.2017 before the Commission. The crux of the submission revolve around the receipt of the RTI application dated 07.09.2015 in the CC-II branch on 16.09.2015 upon being forwarded by the Scrutiny Branch and return of the same in original to the PIO-RTI Cell on 21.09.2015.
The Noticee has nowhere mentioned any action taken by him during his tenure, to facilitate dissemination of the information sought by the applicant nor has the then PIO been able to justify his inaction. On the whole, the primary thrust of his submissions is only to state that he had no role and responsibility in this case. The submissions of the Noticee/PIO clearly indicate that there has been complete non application of mind by the PIO in this case. He has merely reported about the receipt of the RTI application, forwarding the same and even information about returning of the RTI application in original then again receiving the reply and forwarding the same to the appellant. Nowhere is his involvement indicated in even perusing the information before sending it to the appellant.
5. At this juncture, the Commission finds it pertinent to revisit its earlier observation (made in decision dated 31.08.2017-above). The culpability of the PIO/CC-II, Branch in being the actual custodian of information was evident, particularly in view of the specific averments of the two officials viz. 1) the then PIO, DSSSB and 2) the then Sr. System Analyst (IT Branch) which indicated the following position:
1) It was the responsibility of the then Dy. Secretary Scrutiny/IT/CC-II Branch, DSSSB to send the reply of the said RTI in RTI branch for onward transmission to the applicant.
2) Changes can be made for the posts at the time of final selection of the candidates if they come in the zone of consideration manually by CC-I/II Branch Page 12 of 17 Thus the role and responsibility of the then Dy. Secretary Scrutiny/CC-II Branch, DSSSB who held the post on the date concerned i.e. between September to October 2015 is undisputed in this case.
6. The response of the Noticee- Sh. Bijai Kardam, the then PIO, DS, CC-
II only describes the receipt and forwarding of the RTI Application by the Noticee but digresses from the prime issue as to what prevented him from responding to the RTI application. None of his submissions demonstrate any endeavour on his part in facilitating the dissemination of the information.
DECISION: 07.12.2017
7. The current scenario merits discussion about the role and responsibility of the PIO, as envisaged under the RTI Act. This issue has been dealt with by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 04.08.2011 in the case of J.P. Agrawal Vs. UOI and Ors, [W.P. (C) 7232/2009], which arises out of similar facts. Relevant portion of the said decision are reproduced hereunder:
"...8. ..............., the very requirement of designation of a PIO entails vesting the responsibility for providing information on the said PIO. As has been noticed above, penalty has been imposed on the petitioner not for the reason of delay which the petitioner is attributing to respondent no.4 but for the reason of the petitioner having acted merely as a Post Office, pushing the application for information received, to the respondent no.4 and forwarding the reply received from the respondent no.4 to the information seeker, without himself "dealing" with the application and/or "rendering any assistance" to the information seeker. The CIC has found that the information furnished by the respondent no.4 and/or his department and/or his administrative unit was not what was sought and that the petitioner as PIO, without applying his mind merely forwarded the same to the information seeker. Again, as aforesaid the petitioner has not been able to urge any ground on this aspect. The PIO is expected to apply his/her mind, duly analyse the material before him/her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve / forward what his subordinates have done. . ...."
[Emphasis supplied] Page 13 of 17
8. Thus it is evident that RTI Act entails that the PIO owns the ultimate responsibility for providing information to the applicant which cannot be delegated, save and except in seeking assistance of any other officer necessary for proper discharge of duty. The PIO is under the legal obligation to deal with the RTI requests and render reasonable assistance to the information seeker. Simply forwarding of the RTI Application to the subordinate officer without taking initiative of dissemination of information cannot be considered "rendering reasonable assistance" as mandated under the Act. The delay and abject indifference in handling the RTI application compounded into a delay of eight/nine months, (from December 2015 to August 2016) between the approval of Chairman, DSSSB for carrying out the rectification of records in December 2015 till July 2016 when the Applicant was finally informed about the rectification of the errors and he was able to join service on 15.09.2016. There is no explanation or justification nor even remorse from the official concerned, as could be traced from any of his submissions, for the failure on his part.
9. Thus in this case, the Commission is left with no alternative but hold the then PIO/DS-CC-II, Sh. Bijai Kardam responsible for the failure in dissemination of timely information and for demonstrating complete negligence in discharge of his duties. Accordingly, the Commission is constrained to penalise the concerned the then PIO/DS-CC-II, Sh. Bijai Kardam for causing obstruction in dissemination of information and exhibiting complete negligence and omission, thereby violating the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, in exercise of the provisions of the Section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Sh. Sh. Bijai Kardam, the then PIO/DS-CC-II.
10. Now moving on to the next Noticee, viz. Sh. S P Tyagi, who held office as PIO, DS/CC-II between 09.10.2015 - 02.11.2015 [Addl. Charge] and 03.11.2015 - 31.07.2016 [Full fledged charge], it is noted that he has also placed certain submissions on record, relevant extracts whereof is as under:
1. The undersigned was posted in CC-II Branch, in November, 2015 and retired on 30.07.2016 as Deputy Secretary. During this short period of nine months, 39 long pending results including 4 major results of Delhi Govt. & Delhi Jails of more than 2000 candidates were successfully declared. This remarkable achievement was appreciated by Delhi Govt. officers and long awaiting aspirants too.
2. The said order of FAA dated 7.4.2016 on RTI appeal of Sidharth Handa for correction of spelling mistake in his name was received in CC-II Br. on 7.4.2016 and the same was processed by CC-II on the same day i.e. 7.4.2016.Page 14 of 17
3. This proposal of correction of particulars of all the 05 candidates including Sidharth Handa was examined in detail at different levels upto Chairman and was finally approved by the Competent Authority on 15.07.2016.
4. The proposal after due approval received back in CC-II Br on 19.07.2016 and accordingly the corrigendum was issued on 26.07.2016.
(Attested copies of case processing notes bearing observations at different levels are enclosed herewith as documentary evidence in support of facts stated in paras 2,3 and 4 above).
It is abundant clear from the facts mentioned above that FAA order dated 7.4.2016 was complied with in letter and spirit with no delay by S.P. Tyagi, the then Dy. Secretary/PIO of CC- II Br.
In view of the above, it is therefore requested that the responsibility so fixed on S.P. Tyagi, the undersigned for defying and violating the FAA order dated 7.4.2016 in RTI appeal of Sidharth Handa kindly be removed /waived off in totality in the interest of justice. ...............................................................................................
8. While examining the explanation of the Noticee No. 2, Sh. S P Tyagi, the then PIO/DS-CC-II, it is unavoidable to note that the fact that he held the position of PIO/DS-CC-II between 09.10.2015 - 02.11.2015 on Additional Charge has not been disclosed by Sh. Tyagi. He has made submissions of his tenure as the PIO only when he held the charge as a Full time PIO. The Noticee No. 2 has explained the procedures followed pursuant to the FAA‟s orders dated 07.04.2016, of how the five applications of the candidates seeking correction of their respective particulars were duly examined in detail at different levels upto Chairman and was finally approved by the Competent Authority on 15.07.2016. Upon receipt of this approval on 19.07.2016, the corrigendum was accordingly issued on 26.07.2016 and duly communicated to the appellant.
9. The above explanation though silent about the lapse of time between October and November 2015, it is noted that the Noticee No. 2 has taken due action and interest with respect to the compliance of the FAA‟s order dated 07.04.2016 and has duly reported about the approval received from the Competent Authority. He has further explained that:
It was purely due to administrative reasons as all the branches i.e Interview Cell, Scrutiny br., I.T br. & CC II br were connected with this matter not having clarity as to which level the same could be corrected & so it cleared only in FAA Order dated 7.4.2016 on RTI appeal of Sidharth Handa the candidate directing the C. C. II Br. for correction in the records. Accordingly, the case was put up for compliance on the same day by CCII br. so there was NO wilful delay in CC II br.Page 15 of 17
10. The Commission finds force in the submission of the Noticee No. 2 and finds his explanation justified considering that he did take measures to comply with the FAA‟s orders no willful act of defiance can be attributed to Sh. S P Tyagi. Accordingly, the Commission is inclined to waive the penal proceedings initiated against him.
11. Now moving on to the aspect of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, it is noted that despite repeated opportunities given by this Commission, the Respondents have not sent reply in this regard. The name of the Appellant, which was entered wrongly by the Respondent in their records was not rectified since August 2014, despite repeated applications by the appellant. The factual matrix of the case has already been discussed and recorded during the hearing and hence is not being reiterated here. Pertinent to note that the applicant was made to suffer due to delay in correction of his particulars by DSSSB, as a result of which he could join service only on 15.09.2016, while other successful candidates who were his contemporaries had joined in November 2015. Thus on account of the inaction and inefficiency of the Respondent, the applicant had to suffer financial loss of approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month for a period of atleast eight to nine months, as well as suffer the loss of seniority over the same period. Since the Respondents despite opportunity have chosen not to respond in this regard, this Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 19(8)(b) directs the Respondent-DSSSB to compensate the applicant -Sh. Sidhartha Handa to the tune of Rupees Three Lacs on account of loss and detriment suffered by him due to the arbitrary and unjustified delay in action on their part. The amount shall be remitted to the applicant in ten instalments of Rupees Thirty Thousand each, the first of which should be paid by end of December 2017 and the last to be paid by September 2018.
Compliance of these directions shall be submitted before the Commission.
The instant case is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner As per the decision of Commission of even date, in exercise of powers vested under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 penalty/s of: Rupees Twenty Thousand is being imposed on the Noticee No. 1, the then PIO/DS-CC-II, Sh. Bijai Kardam payable in four instalments of Rupees Five Thousand each.
Page 16 of 17The first instalment of the aforesaid penalty/s should reach the Commission by 26.12.2017 and the last instalment of penalty/s should reach by 26.03.2018. The penalty/s imposed should be remitted through Demand Draft or a Banker‟s Cheque drawn in favour of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and the same should be sent to Shri Shanti Priye Beck, Joint Secretary (Admn.), Central Information Commission, Baba Gang nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110 067.
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 Copy to:-
SIDDHARTH HANDA Public Information Officer under RTI S/o. Shri Surendra Office of the Deputy Secretary, Mohan, 5-G, SARAI Delhi Subordinate Services PHOOSE, DDA COLONY, TIS Selection Board (Government of HAZARI, DELHI-110054. NCT of Delhi), FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
First Appellate Authority under RTI Office of the Secretary & FAA, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Government of NCT of Delhi), FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.Page 17 of 17