Central Information Commission
Biswanath Goswami vs Ministry Of Culture on 26 September, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
Second Appeal No.: CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330
ShriBiswanathGoswami Appellant
Versus
CPIO, National Library, Kolkata Respondent
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 01.08.2016, CPIO replied on 20.09.2016, FAO on 15.11.2016, Second
appeal filed on 21.06.2017, Hearing on 20.08.2018;
Proceedings on 02.04.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Ms. Gopa
Ghosh. Directions for compliance and Show-cause issued.
Proceedings on 28.05.2018: Appellant present from NIC Kolkata, Public Authority absent. Direction
for compliance and posted to 20.08.2018 for penalty proceedings.
Proceedings on 20.08.2018: Appellant present from NIC Kolkata, Public Authority represented by
CPIO Smt. Gopa Ghosh and Mr. ParthaSarathi Das, the then CPIO from NIC Kolkata;
Date of Decision - 26.09.2018:Penalty imposed and disposed of.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought the details of: (i) cooling Technology and Engineering and Gas used for Air Conditioning the entire establishment of the National Library from its inception (ii) copy of physical inspection reports, laboratory reports, expert notes, observations, comments, clearance certificates/permission letters from the competent authorities for using such cooling technology (iii) details of desktop computers and laptop computers allotted in each department with internet and wi-fi connections for official and personal use, copies of unit identification no. against each department (iv) details of website/online portals blocked/restricted in the computers of e-resources centre for National Library for general members/public and other computers of the organisation used/operated by the officials, staffs (v) complete details of login and logout/history of each computer of each department with unit identification id no. The CPIO replied on 20.09.2016demanding Rs. 20 CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330 Page 1 towards photocopying charges and stated that no URL or website is blocked for employees of national Library; also record for login and logout history of desktops are not regularly maintained. The Appellate Authority upheld the response of CPIO on 15.11.2016. The Appellate Authority also held that as per system available in the National Library Network, it can facilitate only two days log-in and log-out history. There is a limit on number of events and traffic logs that will be available and the new logs will override the older logs once the limit is reached.
2. The Commission's order dated 12.04.2018:
2. The appellant alleged that the login-logout details of the employees of National Library are maintained but the CPIO had deliberately denied such information. The Library has blocked certain URLs and websites for restricting the misuse of internet by the employees but the employees are exploiting the internet resources by accessing shopping websites, downloading movies, etc. during office hours. Therefore, he required the details of the login and logout records and unit identification id/no against each computer unit used. He alleged that though notice boards carried notification regarding blocking of certain websites, the CPIO denied the same and supplied false and incomplete information.
3. The Commission directs Ms. Gopa Ghosh, CPIO to provide point-wise information to the appellant, within 21 days from this date.
4. The Commission directs Mr. Parthasarathy Das, CPIO as on 20.09.2016 to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information sought.
5. Ms. Gopa Ghosh, CPIO is directed to secure explanation of Mr. Parthasarathy Das and produce it before the Commission on 28.05.2018. The matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on the aforesaid date.
3. The Commission's order dated 03.07.2018:
3. Dr. Gopa Ghosh, the CPIO vide letter dated 19.04.2018 submitted that:-
"After attending the hearing on 02.04.2018 the undersigned supplied all the answers of the queries with necessary documents as received from the concerned officer (custodian of information as deemed PIO) to the applicant (Shri BiswanathGoswami) on 1 1.04.2018 as per verbal order of CIC."
4. Mr. ParthaSarathi Das, then CPIO, vide letter dated 04.05.2018 submitted his explanations which are as under:-
1. The information about login/logout details are supplied to the information seeker as received from the deemed PIO, Shri S. Siva Prasad, ALIO (Computer). Reply received against question no.5 is enclosed herewith for reference. This information has already been supplied by the present CPIO.
2. The deemed PIO, Shri S. Siva Prasad, ALIO (Computer) has not supplied any list of URLs. The information supplied by the deemed PIO, Shri S. Siva CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330 Page 2 Prasad, ALIO (Computer) contains a list of categories of URLs, but not actual URLs. Due to ambiguity of the information supplied, there is misunderstanding from his part in communicating the information sought.
There is no malafide or wrong intention involved. Reply received against question no. 4 is enclosed herewith for reference. This information is already been supplied by the present CPIO.
3. The undersigned has supplied information to the information seeker as received from the deemed PIO, Mr. S. Siva Prasad, ALIO (Computer). The undersigned has neither denied nor supplied false information.
4. This is informed that the following penalty has already been imposed upon me:
a) CIC/SH/A/2016/001126 dated 12.04.17 : Rs. 25,000/-
b) CIC/SH/C/2016/000277 dated 30.01.18: Rs. 25,000/-
c) CIC/NALIB/C/2016/290730 dated 04.01.2018 : Rs. 1250/-
I humbly pray not to impose any further penalty as a huge penalty amount upon me, is being recovered from my monthly salary.
5. I am a Group "B" a non-ministerial professional officer and is not an administrative officer and therefore not the custodian of files. The undersigned, in absence of regular Administrative officer at the National Library was discharging an additional responsibility of CPIO (Administration). As the undersigned is not conversant with detailed legal interpretation of various sub-sections of the RTI Act, 2005, I humbly accept my ignorance in invoking the exceptions unknowingly.
In the light of above facts, I plead you not to show-cause me, as I am in no way related with administration and I have discharged my duties with integrity and without any prejudice.
6. The appellant during the hearing submitted that partial information has been provided by the respondent authority. He pointed out that on point nos. 3 to 5, the complete information has not been received by him. Whereas the documents available on the records, the Commission notes that the CPIO, Dr. Gopa Ghosh replied that a register is being maintained at the E-Resources Centre to record the name of site to be searched, date and time of entry and exit of user. If the copies are required the appellant is requested to mention the date. However the appellant did not mention any specific date and inform to the respondent authority.
7. Dr. Gopa Ghosh vide letter dated 09.05.2018 submitted to the Commission that the Notice of Hearing (dated 09.05.18) issued by CIC to appear before the commission on 28.05.18 was received by this office on 31.05.18. So the undersigned could neither be present there and nor communicate Mr. Parthasaratlry Das (the then CPIO) regarding this notice. This inconvenience is regretted. He further added that For your information" it is stated that the CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330 Page 3 undersigned already supplied the point-wise information to Mr. BiswanathGoswami on I 1.04.18 as received from deemed PIO (custodian of information) after attending the hearing ctn02.04.2018 and intimated you also on 19.04.18 enclosing the copies of answer sheets and also sent you the letter of Shri ParthaSarathi Das, ALIO & ex CPIO in response to the show- cause by the order No. CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330 dated 12.01.1 8 on 07.05.2018.
5. The appellant alleges that he had not received the complete information, whereas the respondent authority claimed that they have provided the complete information. The respondent authority submitted that they could not attend the hearing on 28.05.2018because of non-receipt of the hearing notice on time. Therefore, the Commission provides another opportunity to present his case regarding penalty proceeding, to clarify the doubt of the appellant and provide the information available with them as soon as possible. The matter is posted on 20.08.2018 for compliance and penalty proceedings.
Decision:
4. Dr. Gopa Ghosh, Assistant Library & Information Officer/CPIO in her written submissions dated 31.05.2018, explained as under:
"This has reference to the CIC's file no. CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330 dated 09.05.18 received by this office on 31.05.18.
The Notice of Hearing (dated 09.05.18) issued by CIC to appear before you on 28.05.18 was received by this office on 31.05.18. So the undersigned could neither be present there and nor communicate Mr. Parthasarathy Das (the then CPIO) regarding this notice. This inconvenience is regretted.
For your information, it is stated that the undersigned already supplied the point- wise information to Mr. BiswanathGoswami on 11.04.18 as received from deemed PIO (custodian of information) after attending the hearing on 02.04.2018 and intimated you also on 19.04.18 enclosing the copies of answer sheets and also sent you the letter of Shri ParthaSarathi Das, ALIO & ex CPIO in response to the show cause by the order no. CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330 dated 12.04.18 on 07.05.18".
5. Upon perusal of records, the Commission finds that sufficient information is provided in compliance of its earlier orders dated 02.04.2018 and 28.05.2018. Further, the information provided should have been provided in the first instance i.e. at the time of responding to the RTI application dated 01.08.2016.
6. Subsequently, the Commission finds that Mr. ParthaSarathi Das, the then CPIO has provided false and misleading information to the appellant vide his response dated 20.09.2016. Mr. ParthaSarathi Das in his written submissions dated CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330 Page 4 04.05.2018 had submitted that the Commission has already imposed maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- in two cases and a penalty of Rs. 1,250/- in another matter.
7. However, considering the instant RTI application, the information which was provided in compliance of this Commission's order was not given within the 30 days time-frame as stipulated under the Act. The mistake committed by the CPIO cannot be ignored considering the previous penalties imposed against him. Nevertheless, in view of the above, the Commission taking a lenient view, finds the CPIO liable under section 20 of the Act and imposes a penalty of Rs. 1,250/- for not providing the information within the stipulated time-frame. The penalty of Rs. 1,250/- shall be deducted by the Public Authority from the salary of the CPIO 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: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 before 26.11.2018. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/NALIB/A/2017/603330 Page 5