Central Information Commission
J P Saini vs Department Of Posts on 24 July, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. SridharAcharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814
J P Saini v. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 28.07.2016, CPIO replied on 31.08.2016, FAO on 31.10.2016,
Second appeal filed on 01.02.2017, Hearing on 21.02.2018;
Proceedings on 21.02.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr.
Manoj Kumar: Direction andShow-cause issued.
Proceedings on 03.04.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr
S.K. Singhal, CPIO.Show-cause and directions for compliance issued.
Proceedings on 21.05.2018: Appellant present from NIC Rohtak, Public Authority
represented by CPIO. Mr Shudha Ram Sharma from NIC Bhiwani:
Date of Decision - 23.07.2018: Penalty dropped.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought certified copy of complaints on corruption received for submission of commentsagainst Shri Sadhu Ram Sharma, SPOs Bhiwani during the period 01.03.2015 to 28.07.2016, copies of comments submitted to C.O.Ambala, copy of Punishment register of Divisional Office Bhiwani for the month of July-2016 etc. on total ten points. The CPIO on 31.08.2016 gave a point wise reply. Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO on point Nos. 1, 2 and 6, the appellant filed an appeal before the FAA and the FAA stated that information sought on point No. 1 and 2 is not specific and further denied the information on point no. 6 under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.Aggrieved with the above responses the appellant approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 22.02.2018:
2. The officer representing the respondent authority was not well-versed with the case, therefore, he could not represent the matter properly. The Commission records its displeasure that the public authority did not depute a responsible officer to present the case. Consequently, they wasted precious time of the Commission. The Commission takes serious note of it and warns the respondent authority to be more careful in future in deputing the officer to present the case before the Commission.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 1
3. The Commission upon perusal of the records, finds that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO on point Nos. 1, 2 and 6 of the RTI application. The appellanton point no. 6 sought attested photocopy of punishment order in r/o Shri Gaje Singh, Postal Assistant, Bhiwani, HO issued in the month of May 2016 and the same was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which is incorrect and illegal. The Commission observes that if a complaint is registered against an employee and charges have been proved with beyond reasonable doubt and consequently punishment is awarded to the concerned corrupt employees. Then, this matter pertains to corruption and it should be disclosed in public interest.Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the aforesaid punishment order to the appellant within 20 days of the receipt of this Order.
4. The Commission also directs the respondent authority to provide information sought on point nos. 1 and 2 to the appellant within 20 days of the receipt of this Order as the same pertains to the corruption case against Shri Sadhu Ram Sharma.
5. The Commission directs Mr. S. C. Singhal, the CPIO, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing complete information to the appellant within the stipulated time period as mentioned in the RTI Act.
4. All the explanations must reach to this Commission before 20.03.2018 and the matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceeding on 20.03.2018.
3. The Commission's order dated 04.04.2018:
3. Mr. S.K. Singhal, CPIO submitted that he was not the CPIO as on date of filing of RTI application and the concerned CPIO was Mr. Sadhu Ram Sharma, SPO, Bhiwani.
4. The Commission takes note that the Public Authority has not furnished the information till date despite this Commission's order dated 23.02.2018. Mr. S.K. Singhal, CPIO is directed to provide complete information along with certified copies of the documents sought, within ten days.
5. The Commission directs Mr. Sadhu Ram Sharma, SPO of Bhiwani and CPIO as on 31.08.2016, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information sought and for non-
compliance of this Commission's order dated 23.02.2018.
6. Mr. S.K. Singhal, CPIO is directed to secure the explanation of Mr. Sadhu Ram Sharma and send the same to this Commission, before 21.05.2018. The matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on the aforesaid date.
Decision :
4. Mr. S K Singhal, the CPIO vide his explanations dated 26.03.2018submitted as under:-
The CPIO replied that Vide Para no. 1 of his above mentioned application, the applicant requested to supply the name of competent authority to accept CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 2 the resignation of a BCR official in clerical cadre. In this regard it is submitted that the required information has already been supplied to the applicant hence no comments required. Para Nos. 2 &3, attested copy of application of Sh. Gaze Singh BCR PA Bhiwani Dn. seeking voluntary retirement from service. In this regard it is submitted that the applicant has not mentioned the date of application which is exempted under section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Para No 4 required. to I has already supplied to the applicant hence no comments.
Para No.10 & 11 attested copy of noting of relevant file reviewing the punishment order of Sh. Taje Singh BCR,PA Bhiwani vide memo no. F/IV/1/2011 dated 26.05.2016, attested photo copy of noting relevant file reviewing the copy of punishment register of Bhiwani Division for the month of May 2016.under the preview of RTI Act-2005 the information not available cannot be supplied.
5. Mr. Sadhu Ram Sharma vide letter dated 14.05.2018, submitted to the Commission as under:-
Most respectfully, It is submitted that I, am, Sadhu Ram Sharma retired Superintendent Post Offices Bhiwani had worked as SPOs Bhiwani cum CPIO during the period 31.03.2015 to 28.02.2017. In the capacity of CPIO I supplied available and admissible information to the applicants under RTI Act 2005. In the case under reference I have been directed by your good self to show- cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon me for following reasons:
1. For not furnishing the information sought by the applicant
2. For non compliance of Commission's order dated23.02.2018.
Before submitting my explanation I would like to mention facts of the case in brief so as to provide a clear and better picture to my version.
BriefHistory: Copy of application dated 28.07.2016 of one Sh. J.P. Saini r/o 833110, Roopnagar, Rohtak seeking information under RTI Act 2005 was received in the o/o SPOs Bhiwani cum CPIO on 01.08.2016. The required, available and admissible information was supplied to the applicant vide SPOs Bhiwani letter no. CR/RTV87/2016-17 dated 31.08.2016.
It is clearly evident that all the information as available was supplied to the applicant except Point no. 1, 2 and 6 which could not be supplied due to reasons mentioned below and the applicant was also informed of the same.
Contention of the appellant Para no.1&2:- The version of CPIO is 100% wrong. Shri Sadhu Ram Sharma, SPOs Bhiwani is the most corrupt officer and a good number of complaints were received against him during the past in the capacity of SPOs Bhiwani. He has not denied that no complaint received, it means that complaints were received. Because he is guilty, that is why he has denied the information on flimsy ground. The CPIO may kindly be advised to supply the required information immediately.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 3 Reply: Most respectfully, it is submitted that RTI Act, 2005 provide right of information to the citizen of India. But the applicant is misusing the right by alleging baseless and false allegation on undersigned. The applicant has no authority or right to declare undersigned a most corrupt officer and it is a clear act of defamation. I wonder how your kind honour overlooked such gross misconduct/misbehaviour on part of the applicant. It is submitted that as envisaged in the RTI Act the CPIO is responsible for supplying the information specified by the applicant, which is readily available in the record. The CPIO is not supposed to create or supply the information based on assumption. It is onus upon the applicant to clearly specify which information required by him which is available within the functioning of the CPIO. But here applicant failed to specify the information required by him. The applicant was seeking information regarding complaint received on corruption against the undersigned. He neither mentioned any specific complaint, complainant name, date of complaint and related case etc. Therefore no definite information was sought by the applicant. There was no case of corruption found initiated against the undersigned in the record of the CPIO Bhiwani. Therefore, in lack of such particulars information could not be traced out.
Hence, most respectfully it submitted that there was no denial of information instead the CPIO was unable to trace out and supplying the information due to incomplete particulars of information and applicant was informed of accordingly. As such there is no violation of any section of RTI Act for which undersigned could be held responsible.
Contention of the appellant in respect of Para no.6: The version of the CPIO is 100% wrong. The punishment order is not a third party information. I had not asked the account No & balance of his passbook but photocopy of punishment order. The punishment judgment order issued by Hon'ble Court are published in various Law journals/ Reporters. The CPIO cum SPOs Bhiwani is guilty that is why he has refused to supply the required information.
Reply: It is submitted that it has been held in various judgment of CIC and Hon'ble Court that information related to disciplinary action taken against any employee is matter of personal information of the charged official. For instance Hon'ble Commission vide its decision dated26.06.2013 in case mark CIC/SN/A/2013/000058 titled as Sh. Manoj Arya vs. CPIO Cabinet Secretariat had held that information relating to disciplinary action against an employee is a personal information and cannot be disclosed under RTI Act 2005. Accordingly undersigned provided an opportunity to third party vide notice dated 02.08.2016 u/s 11 of RTI act 2005 to represent himself. Responding to the notice, the said sh. Gaje Singh denied to disclose information related to him vide his representation dated 03.08.2016. It is specified in sub section 7 of section 7 of RTI Act 2005 that ('Before taking any decision under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall take into consideration the representation made by a third party under section 11"). Accordingly, the undersigned consider all the aspects and did not disclose the CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 4 required information as requested by the third party as applicant did not mention any ground of public interest in seeking information related to third party.
The appellant had appealed to first appellate authority vide his application dated 30.09.2016. The first appellate authority disposed off the appeal by passing speaking orders vide memo no RTI/6- 2lAppeaVl3ll20l6 dated 31.10.2016thatthe reply of CPIO is under the purview of RTI Act.
As the first appellate authority had disposed off the appeal of the applicant upholding the decision of the CPIO, therefore the appellant filed 2od appeal before the Hon'ble CIC. The date of hearing was held on 23.02.2018 and orders were passed without going into merit of the case and SPOs Bhiwani cum CPIO was directed to supply the information to the applicant. The Hon'ble CIC further held hearing in the case and orders dated 04.04.2018 were passed directing me to submit explanation for not furnishing the information to the applicant and for not comply with the orders dated23.02.2018 passed by the commission. It is submitted that orders were passed on 23 .02.201 8 whereas I have already been retired after attaining the age of superannuation on28.02.2017 and as such was not CPIO Bhiwani, for making compliance on your good self orders dated 23.02.20 I 8.
In the preceding paras, I replied to contention raised by the applicant with respect to reply given to him vide the then SPOs Bhiwani cum CPIO (undersigned) vide letter dated 3l .08,2016. However, as per direction of the Hon'ble Commission I would like to submit some points in support of my version Preliminary Contention
1. That I have been asked for explaining the reasons after the orders had been passed in the appeal. Had I been given chance to explain my version at an earlier stage i.e. prior to at the time of personal hearing then my submission could be a material fact for arriving at any decision by the Hon'ble CIC.
2. That I have been asked for submitting explanation for non compliance of the orders dated 23.02.2018 of the commission whereas I had already retired from service after attaining the age on 28.02.2017.
3. There is no violation of any section of RTI Act 2005 in replying to the applicant and all reply had been given to the applicant with reference to the relevant section of the RTI Act and based on various decision passed by the Hon'ble CIC and Hon'ble Court.
4. Section 2l of RTI Act 2005 provide protection of action taken in good faith. The undersigned being a CPIO consider the application of the applicant with the purview of RTI and judge the applicability of act as per best of my knowledge and conscience. The reply of the CPIO was also upheld by the Hon'ble First Appellate authority. Therefore, there is no procedural lacuna or any malafide intention on part of the CPIO in replying to the applicant and hence no penalty justify on the CPIO.
5. It is submitted that while considering the appeal of said sh. J.P. Saini your good self himself inter alia held clear finding in case mark CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2017/160940 & CIC/POSTS/A/2017/149122 vide decision dated 21.11.2017 &24.11.2017 respectively which reflects that said Sh. J.P. Saini has been habitual of filing repeated RTI just to harass public authority and is highly irresponsible and unmindful of wasting public money and time of public authority. Your good self also held that the appellant is not an ordinary citizen but has acted as CPIO for five to six years. He does not deserve any sympathy Reply on Merit:
1. It is submitted that there is no violation of any section of RTI Act by the undersigned in reply given to the applicant vide CPIO Bhiwani letter no. CNRTAST /2016-17 dated 31 .08.2016.
2. The applicant was not deliberately denied for supplying the information, instead either the definite information could not be traced due to lack of particulars furnished by the applicant or information could not be disclosed being exempted under section 8 (i) of RTI Act.
3. It is submitted that applicant had been worked as CPIO as well as SPOs Bhiwani during the period 26.05.2005 to 30.03.2009. His RTI applications are centric to individual with whom he has any personal revenge. The approach of the applicant is not a information seeker instead he is using this platform to throw mud on others
4. I would like to invite your kind attention towards your honor decision dated 2L l I .201 7 in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/160940. In your comprehensive decision reference had been made to the approximately 251RTIs (which involves this RTI also in which my explanation is sought) filed by the applicant and Commission mentioned clear findings in Para no. 11 to 17 which inter alia intention. The commission also held that the appellant does not deserve any information from the Public authority under RTI Act on these aspects. The Hon'ble CIC had also mentioned findings of Hon'ble Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justice R.V. Raveendran and justice A.K. Patnaik held in the landmark judgment of CBSE &Anr.
V Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors:
"indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive (government) getting bogged down with the non-production work of collecting and furnishing information.
It is also pertinent to mention here that commission vide para no. 17 had recommended the Public Authority to explore the possibility of initiating legal action against Mr. J.P. Saini though he is retired Class-I officer to free the Public Authority from unreasonable wastage of public time and money.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 6 Similarly case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/149122, your good self vide orders dated 24.1I.2017 disposed off the appeal of the appellant (Sh. J.P. Saini) with finding that public authority cannot waste public money by responding to repeated RTIs through registered, filed with malicious intention. The appellant does not deserve any information from the Public Authority under RTI Act on these aspects. Therefore, your good self had opinioned that said Sh. J.P. Saini had misused the RTI Act and department of Post has enough evidence to act against this appellant who made the Public Authority to waste most of its time on his frivolous applications and recommended the Public Authority to explore the possibility of initiating legal action against Mr. J.P. Saini.
5. It is submitted that RTI platform is for seeking information and not for raising any grievance or personal allegation. The applicant is misusing the Act and imposing false and baseless allegation upon me without any evidence. The applicant without any right or authority is trying to be in the shoe of Hon'ble judiciary by passing his own judgment regarding one's character or integrity. It is highly objectionable and apparently a matter of defamation. It is beyond my senses how the Hon'ble CIC can rely on false version of the applicant and allow him to misuse the RTI Act. It is submitted that while the said Sh. J.P. Saini had been working as SPOs Bhiwani, I had worked as ASPO(HQ) Bhiwani. As I am not in habit of doing any wrong things under pressure, I did not to be his line of action and kept his mind for settling score with me in future with the motive of quidproquo he made abortive attempt to defame me in one way or the other. Similarly he made futile efforts to let me down in other many cases. There is nothing truth in allegation and completely devoid of any genuineness of facts. It is submitted that no employee/person is superior to the System. There is dedicated authority for each matter and any individual cannot consider himself over and above from the system. I have been retired on superannuation on28.02.2017 with full of respect without any allegation of any type of corruption by the competent authority which itself speaks that all the allegations of the applicant are motivated by his revengeful attitude towards me as I did not bow to his supremacy. When he did not succeed in malafide tactics of defaming me, he has opted the mean of RTI.
6. It is submitted that applicant is emphasizing on false allegation that he was deliberately denied toprovide information regarding complaints against the undersigned. It is submitted that if theapplicant is quite sure of complaints why he had not provided complete particulars of thecomplaints. It is clearthatmotive of the applicant is justto harass the public authority by askingquestions and incomplete information. It is submitted that to provide any information under RTI Act following issues are involved.
(a) Locate the exact information on the basis of particulars furnished by the applicant.
(b) After identifying the information ensure availability of information.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 7
(c) After ensuring availability of information decide whether the information is not exempted tobe disclosed under section 8(1).
But in the present case as the applicant failed to provide complete particulars of the complaintsabout which information desired by him. Therefore 2nd and 3rd step was not required. However,irrespective of the incomplete particulars, there is another aspect also.
That the Applicant is seeking information regarding complaints on corruption. Providing of copyof complaints under RTI Act not only disclose identity of a complainant but also put life of acomplainant in danger and therefore such information are exempted to be disclosed under RTIAct. However, in the present case the undersigned could not be traced out the information desiredby the applicant but even if the complaints had been traced out these could not be providedkeeping in the view the safety of life of complainants, It is also a fact that before inquiring intocomplaints and taking necessary action, disclosing such information would also impede theprocess of investigation. Therefore, it is submitted that information demanded by the applicant inno way could be disclosed even if it had been traced out.
7. It is mere an eye wash of the applicant that he is fighting against the corruption by grabbingconfidential information of loss and fraud cases which are still pending. The applicant is interestedin seeking CLVDLI, copy of charge sheet and punishment orders etc., without owing anyresponsibility to these cases. Such types of information speaks about the evidence come in thefraud case and involvement of various persons etc. It would never be in fitness of completion offab finalization of the case that such confidential information disclose to such person who isindulge in maintaining a parallel record of loss and fraud case in his personal custody by means ofseeking RTI information. There are many involved person in the loss and fraud cases anddisclosing such information under RTI Act prior to finalization of the case would have possibilityof not only hamper the inquiry process but also affect the process of finalization of disciplinarycase of all involved persons inthe loss & fraud case. Therefore,I request Hon'ble CIC to look onthis aspect also as the applicant is owing no responsibility to loss and fraud case and he had retiredsince long but he still so interested in procuring information which could be further disclosed toany other person connected to the case.
8. Finally, I would like to pray before the Hon'ble Commission that I have not acted in a manner which may warrant any penalty on me. My decision was within the purview of RTI Act for following reasons:
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 8
(a) That there is no such case that application of the applicant was refused. His application wasproperly received and suitably been replied within the time limit fixed in the RTI Act.
(b) That there is no such case of any malafide denial of information. The available informationwas supplied and some information could not be traced out due to incomplete particularsfurnished by the applicant. The information which relates to third party was decided not todisclose as provision provided in the Act.
(c) That I have been acted keeping in view the best possible assessment of Act as per my capacityand in light of decision passed by the Hon'ble CIC itself as per reference given by me.
(d) That I have been asked for submitting explanation for non- compliance of the orders dated23.02.2018 of the commission whereas I had already retired from service on28.02.2017.
Therefore, it is submitted that reply given to the applicant vide this office letter dated31.08.2016 was within the purview of RTI Act which was upheld by the first appellateauthority. The appeal of the applicant is devoid of merit and show cause issued to me for non- supplying the information may kindly be withdrawn keeping in view the factual submission made by the undersigned.
6. Upon perusal of the records and submissions made by the parties, the Commission finds that complete information has been provided with and order of the Commission has been complied with. The Commission also finds that detailed and comprehensive explanation given by Mr. Sadhu Ram, the then CPIO is apt, reasonable and satisfactory. Hence, the penalty proceedings are dropped.
Sd/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108814 Page 9