Central Information Commission
Mr.Mukul Mishra vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 25 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002513/9892
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002513
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Mukul Mishra,
C/A14, Old Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad- 201202 UP.
Respondent : Mr. K. R. Mendiratta
Deemed PIO & Assistant Director,
Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
K-Block, Vikas Bhawan,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi -110002.
RTI application filed on : 19-01-2010
PIO replied : 15-04-2010
First appeal filed on : 15-03-2010
First Appellate Authority order : 19-08-2010
Second Appeal received on : 08-09-2010
Information sought:
1. Pl. provide me information regarding Not Reporting Certificate /ACRs for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 on following points.
a. Work capacity. b. Intelligence. c. Conduct.
d. Integrity.
e. Overall assessment.
2. And my vigilance status as on Feb., 2009(last) from:
Directorate of Vigilance.
Department of consumer affairs (P&S).
The PIO's reply:
"With reference to your application dated 21.01.2010 regarding Non-reporting Certificates/ACRs for the year 2004 to 2009. In this connection, it is inform you that ACRs of the Members of District Consumers Disputes Redressal Fore are not maintained by the Consumer Affairs Branch. Your ACRs received earlier through regional state Commission had been returned back to the Registrar, state commission as the same not maintained by this branch."
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied with the PIO's reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The undersigned have gone through the main RTI application dated 19.1.2010 and observed that the appellant sought the copies of Not Reporting Certificate/ACRs in the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 on Work capacity, Intelligence, Conduct. Integrity and Overall Assessment as well as Vigilance Status as on February 2009. On perusal of the record, it is observed that Shri Mukul Mishra was functioning as Member, District Forum (North East/East). He was not a regular employee of this Department, nor he was employed on contract basis. He was working as a member in the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and was getting lump sum honorarium and. conveyance allowance. As such, maintenance of ACRs does not cover under the purview of CCS (Conduct Rules). However, the Registrar, State Commission is directed to provide the copies of the required documents to the appellant as per rules within a week under intimation to the undersigned. The appeal is disposed off with these observations. Ordered accordingly."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been provided by the PIO and not satisfied with the FAA's order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Mukul Mishra;
Respondent: Mr. K. R. Mendiratta, Deemed PIO & Assistant Director;
The appellant was a contractual employee of the District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forum. He was seeking copies of his ACRs for various years. The PIO states that there is no practice of submitting ACRs by these forums or by the State Commission itself. He claims that the District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forums have to work under the State Commission as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. The appellant is showing that the appellate authority had on 19/08/2010 stated that "As such maintenance of ACRs is not covered under the preview of CCS(conduct rules) however the register, state Commission is directed to provide the copies of the required documents to the appellant as per rule within a week under intimation to the under signed." The PIO states that the FAA's ordered was sent to the Registrar of the State Commission. The appellant has received the ACRs from the office of the Registrar, State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission today from Mr. Khanna, Head Clerk. It appears that the order of the FAA was not implemented by the Registrar, State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information appears to have been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO Mr. Rajinder Singh Registrar, SCDRC within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his 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 showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Rajinder Singh, Registrar will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 10 December 2010 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
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 25 October 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(BK) CC;
To, Mr. Rajinder Singh, Registrar, State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission. A Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi