Central Information Commission
Netrapal Singh vs Indian Army on 29 November, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/IARMY/A/2020/109632- Final
In the matter of:
Netrapal Singh
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
O/o Cantonment Board Ambala
229, Race Course Road, Ambala Cantt- 133 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 26/07/2019 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 19/11/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Second Appeal filed on : 22/02/2020 Date of Hearing : 10/11/2021, 26/11/2021 Date of Decision : 10/11/2021, 26/11/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Sh. Harkesh Kumar, Accountant & CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to Mr. Sanjay Kumar who worked as Sanitary Inspector for the period from June, 2001 to August, 2007:
1. Copy of the Sanitary Inspector's Diploma of Sh. Sanjay Kumar.
2. Copy of the office order No. 408 dated 22/06/2001.
3. Copy of the office order No. 540 dated 14/10/2001.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he has not received any reply till date. He requested the Commission to impose penalty on the CPIO.
The CPIO could not explain whether any reply was given or not and appeared unprepared for the hearing..
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had clearly violated the provisions of the RTI Act by not providing any reply. As far as relief sought is concerned, the same cannot be granted for point no 1, as the said information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being third party personal information. However, for points 2 & 3, these are official orders , which should be in public domain and copies of these should be provided.
Interim Decision:
The CPIO's conduct in not providing a reply to the RTI Application amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO to appear before the bench on 26.11.2021 at 02.25 pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents which he chooses to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents be sent to the Commission at least two days prior to the hearing via linkpaper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission, the CPIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well.
The CPIO to provide a suitable reply on points no. 2 & 3 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is adjourned accordingly.
Date of Hearing: 26/11/2021 Date of Decision: 26/11/2021 The following were present during the hearing: Respondent: Sh. Harkesh Kumar, Accountant & CPIO, present over phone 2 Submissions made by Respondent during the hearing: The CPIO vide written submissions dated 23.11.2021 submitted that the applicant is a habitual filer of RTI applications and his applications lack public interest. He further submitted that the appellant had filed an RTI application on 23.08.2018 regarding tender and the CPIO has given all the information and documents on 03.09.2019. He further submitted that the appellant had filed another application on 13.06.2019 regarding appointment of Sanitary Inspector Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal and the CPIO had given all the information and documents on 24.07.2019 except the copy of diploma of Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal as it related to third party information. He further submitted that the same appellant had filed another RTI application on 30.07.2019 regarding appointment of Sanitary Inspector, promotion of safai karamchari etc. and the CPIO had given all the information and documents on 19.04.2021, the same relates to file no. CIC/IARMY/A/2019/152999 in which order was passed on 04.06.2021. However, he failed to submit the copy of the reply related to the present RTI application filed by the appellant. He summed up stating that due to overload of work he could not reply on time. He may be exempted and also he shall be careful in future.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had not provided any reply on time. Moreover, he failed to enclose the copy of the reply in his written submissions. The fact remains that there is no suitable explanation for not providing a timely reply. The CPIO's plea of not providing a timely reply due to work pressure is not acceptable.
Final Decision:
The RTI application was filed on 26.07.2019 and till today no reply was provided by the CPIO. Therefore, this is a fit case for imposition of penalty. The Commission is however taking a lenient view and imposing only a token penalty.
Accordingly the Commission, taking a lenient view imposes a token penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand only) on Mr. Harkesh Kumar, Accountant for the reasons mentioned above. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand only) shall be deducted by the Public Authority from the salary of Mr. Harkesh Kumar by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi and forward the demand drafts addressed to Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email:3
[email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The aforesaid penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 01.02.2022.
The showcause proceeding is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date Copy to:
Dy. Registrar, CR-II, CIC New Delhi 4