Central Information Commission
Ravinder Pathak vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 13 April, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/126327
Ravinder Pathak v. PIO, EPFO, Karnal, Haryana
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 18.12.2016, CPIO reply -Nil, FAO on 21.03.2017, Second appeal filed
on 15.04.2017, Hearing on 08.01.2018;
Proceedings on 08.01.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by Mr. Ravinder.
Show-cause issued.
Proceedings on 27.03.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr K.M.
Parihar from NIC Karnal
Date of Decision - 13.04.2018: Penalty Imposed
ORDER
FACTS:
1. Applicant filed RTI which was received on 22.12.16 and sought annexure of certified copies of documents enclosed as annexure P-1 to P-9 passed by CPIO on a certain order, anyone of fee for providing the documents. The CPIO did not furnish any response but after the 1st appellate order on 21.03.2017, the CPIO provided the list of employees sought by the appellant. The appellant was not satisfied with information, hence, filed second appeal before this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 08.01.2018:
2. Mr. Ravinder, officer representing the respondent authority stated that the annexures sought by the appellant were furnished on 14.12.2017. The officer failed to explain CPIO's inaction on appellant's RTI application for one entire year.
The information was furnished to the appellant only after receiving the hearing notice for second appeal before this Commission.
3. The Commission directs Mr. K.M. Parihar, CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for causing delay of one year in furnishing the information sought. The CPIO is directed to send the explanation, before 08.02.2018. The matter is posted for penalty proceedings on 08.02.2018.
Decision :
3. Mr. K.M. Parihar, CPIO submitted that the list of employees sought and it was also intimated that action for belated deposits had been taken against CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/126327 Page 1 establishment under section 14B and 7Q of Employees Provident Fund and Misclellaneous Provisions Act 1952 for the period 4/2007 to 10/2007, 11/2007 to 08/2008 and 09/2008 to 01/2012. He stated that their office had not received the RTI application and therefore responded to the appellant after receiving the direction of the First Appellate Authority on 21.03.2017. The appellant was supplied point-wise information. The appellant had demanded the CPIO to attest the documents attached to his RTI application as Annexure P1 to P9 which was numbered as Annexure P2 to P10 along with the first appeal. He also stated that the documents supplied to the appellant by the Link Officer and they carried short signatures of the authorised officers of that relevant period.
4. The appellant stated that the documents consisting of the list of employees were supplied to him without stamp or attestation of the authority who released such list and insisted that if the concerned officers who prepared the list during 2007 to 2013 were no more working at the Office, the documents could be attested by the current CPIO, Mr. K.M. Parihar.
5. The Commission finds that the documents attached by the appellant in the present RTI application includes copy of his previous RTI application dated 24.06.2013, reply dated 24.09.2013 of Mr. R.K. Saxena, the then APFC and reply dated 30.07.2013 by the then APFC Mr. M.K. Sharma. On perusal of the records, it is found that the documents P1 to P9 carried signatures of several officers from 2013 to 2017 but the appellant has requested the stamp along with clear dates on all the documents.
6. The Commission directs Mr. K.M. Parihar to attest all the annexures P2 to P10 filed by the appellant in his first appeal and send the documents to the appellant, within 15 days from this date. The CPIO has exhibited a callous approach towards his RTI related duties and his explanation on not attesting the documents furnished is totally not acceptable. Hence, the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on Mr. K.M Parihar. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the salary payable to, Shri K.M. Parihar, CPIO by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in. The Demand Draft for Rs. 1,000/- should reach the Commission by 12.06.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S.P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl.
CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/126327 Page 2 Registrar, Room No. 505, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/126327 Page 3