Central Information Commission
Abimanyu Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 15 September, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के य सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
शकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CCCER/C/2019/102642
Abimanyu Kumar ... शकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, O/o the Chief ... तवाद /Respondent
Commissioner CGST & CX, Ranchi
Zone, Central Revenue Building,
Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 29.08.2018 FA : 23.10.2018 Complaint: 17.01.2019
CPIO : 25.09.2018 FAO : 22.11.2018 Hearing: 08.09.2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o the Chief Commissioner CGST & CX, Ranchi Zone, Central Revenue Building, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar seeking information on five points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Details of Superintendent, Inspector, Ministerial, Havaldar, etc. who have not been posted in South Bihar, Jharkhand;
(ii) Reasons for not being posted, etc. Page 1 of 4
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the CPIO, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant was represented through his representative Shri Amit Pandey who attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Ram Karan, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated nil and the same has been taken on record.
5. The representative of the complainant submitted that the respondent has given evasive and misleading reply to the complainant on his RTI application dated 29.08.2018. He further submitted that the complainant had filed first appeal before the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 22.11.2018 had directed the CPIO to provide information to the appellant. The CPIO, had therefore, asked Rs. 114/- for photocopy charges and the complainant has deposited Rs. 120/- in order to obtain the information. But despite that the respondent has not provided complete information to the complainant. The representative of the complainant further submitted that the CPIO in its initial reply has wrongly submitted that the information sought by the complainant is in public domain but no details of website has been given to the complainant. He further submitted that if the information is available in public domain then as to why certain information was provided to the complainant after the order of FAA. He stated that penalty should be imposed on the respondent.
6. The respondent submitted that information as available on record has been provided to the complainant on his RTI application dated 29.08.2018. On query from the Commission, Shri Nandeshwar Singh was the then PIO.
Decision:
7. Considering the averments of both the parties and from the perusal of the record, it is very clear on the face of the RTI application that the appellant had sought specific information as enumerated above. But, the CPIO, had provided a vague reply to the complainant on 25.09.2018 whereby complete information has not been provided to the complainant. The respondent has merely stated that the information is available on the website, but no web-link of the website was given by the then PIO. The complainant further contended that if the information is available in public Page 2 of 4 domain then as to why the photocopy charges was asked by the PIO after the direction of the FAA to obtain the information.
8. The Commission observed that the respondent has not given categorical reply. It seems that the then PIO deliberately wants to obstruct the information to the complainant because the respondent has neither provided the information nor have denied the information to the complainant and this caused delay in providing complete and correct information to the complainant on his RTI application. This amounts to grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. In the above circumstances, levy of penalty is warranted. Therefore, this Commission is constrained to impose a penalty of Rs. 500/- u/Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the then CPIO, Shri Nandeshwar Singh who held charge of the RTI application during the relevant period for his casual and callous approach in responding to the RTI application. The amount of Rs. 500/- shall be deducted by the Public Authority from his salary by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi and the demand draft should be forwarded to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. This demand draft of Rs. 500/- should reach the Commission by 13.10.2020. The present CPIO should ensure service a copy of this order to the then CPIO.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार ग"ु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
Information Commissioner (स
सूचना आय# ु त)
त
िदनां क / Date: 08.09.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा&णत स(या)पत त)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
O/o the Chief Commissioner CGST & CX,
Ranchi Zone, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Central Revenue Building, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar-800001.
2. Abimanyu Kumar, Page 4 of 4