Central Information Commission
Prem Lata Suri vs Department Of Posts on 14 September, 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/C/2017/139615
PremLataSuriv. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 02.02.2017, CPIO replied on 02.03.2017, FAO on 11.04.2017, Second
appeal filed on 09.06.2017, Hearing on 18.07.2018;
Proceedings on 09.08.2017: Complainant present, Public authority absent, Directions and show
cause issued.
Proceedings on 08.05.2018: Complainant present along with Mr. Sandeep Marwah and
Mr.PawanSuriin person, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr G C Goyal: Show-cause issued.
Proceedings on 18.07.2018: Complainantrepresented by Mr. Sandeep Marwah and Mr.Pawan
Kumar Suriat CIC, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr G C Goel from NIC Gurdaspur and
Mr.JethimalJinger, CPIO from NIC Saharanpur:
Date of Decision - 14.09.2018: Penalty imposed.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant Mrs.PremLataSuriin her RTI application explained details of her demand for information: She is the sister of deceased (late) Sh. Sukhdev Raj Soni, who died on 28.08.2015. It has come to knowledge that one lady (by name Raksha Rani) has claimed herself as wife of late Sh. Sukhdev Raj Soni, and obtained documents, details from Postoffice fraudulently through RTI Act. In fact wife of Sukhdev Raj Soni left his company about 45 (forty five) years back and never come back even after his death, and her brother spent whole life lonely without any care and happiness and it is not even known whether the deserted wife of her brother is alive or not or whether child was there. The woman (by name Raksha Rani) claiming as wife of late Sh. Sukhdev Raj Sonisought documents from Post office, which gave all without any inquiry/verification. This was despite the fact as per his WILL Sh. Sukhdev Raj had declared and affirmed that his wife Rakshaand son were staying away from him for last about 43 years and they will have no right with him and his property. The applicant states and affirms that the alleged lady is not lawfully wedded wife of Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj.
CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 1
2. The applicant sought following information under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005:
1. Please provide the certified copies of application/documents submitted by one claimant Ms.RakshaKumari @ Ms.Raksha Rani to your office with regard to the captioned subject i.e. Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj Soni in May & July 2016, along with her authentic identity and eligibility to claim.
2. Please provide the clause of RTI Act-2005 where the Act saying that rd 3 party information can be given to any without any inquiry/approval etc.
3. Please also provide the information/certified copies of the concerned officials with name, designation and contact details, who sanctioned/issued the brother's documents to the above unknown lady claimant i.e. Ms.Raksha Rani.
4. Please also provide the information/certified copies whether the officers sent a letter or approached the nominees to check or clear that lady is the legal heir or not and the information may be given to her or not. The applicant and two sisters are legal heirs of Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj as per the nominees.
5. Please also provide the information as to on what basis the concerned officials had given the information to that lady.
6. Please also provide the certified copies of the documents/file noting related to the approval/sanction of document to the above unknown lady.
7. Please also provide the office Email, address, telephone no. extn no., web site no. and grievance cell no.
3. After receiving response from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal saying:
i. Because the learned PIO has totally failed to consider and appreciate the material fact that the alleged documents i.e. certified copies of the application/document submitted by one claimant Ms.RakshaKumari @ Ms.Raksha Rani are in custody, power, possession and control of the authority concern and the Post Master, Post Office Gurdaspur without any justified and lawful grounds and without any reasonable and probable cause has withhold the documents which has caused grave irreparable loss and injury to the interest of the appellant.
ii. Because the learned PIO has totally failed to consider and appreciate the material fact that Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj has nominated his sisters namely appellant, Smt. SudershanTakyar and Smt. Nirmal Chopra to claim the benefits and advantage of the sum lying with Post Office as a trust. The appellant was/is having every legal right, title and interest to CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 2 claim the documents as mentioned in the RTI application and withholding the information clearly proves and established the fact that the Post Officials are acting in collusion, connivance and hand in gloves with Smt. RakshaKumari @ Raksha Rani.
iii. Because the learned PIO has totally failed to consider and appreciate the material fact that the Postal Authority has concealed the material fact that alleged lady namely Smt. RakshaKumari @ Raksha Rani and alleged son Rajender Kumar have filed a false civil suit bearing No. 725/16 which is pending in the learned Court of Ms.MamtaKakkar, Judge, Junior Civil Division, Batala, in that suit they are claiming themselves to be legal heirs of Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj and seeking the injunction to the Postal Authorities not to issue the benefits in favour of the appellant and her another sister and this material fact is very much in the actual and constructive knowledge of authorized agents, servants and employees of the post office, Gurdaspur.
iv. Because the leaned PIO has totally failed to consider and appreciate the material fact that in the RTI application the appellant has specifically mentioned the fact that the wife of brother of the appellant left him 45 years back and never came back and her brother spend whole life alone and further mentioned the fact that Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj in his Regd. WILL has declared, affirmed and confirmed that his wife Raksha and son were staying away from last about 43 years and they will have no right with him or his property.
v. Because the learned PIO has totally failed to consider and appreciate the material fact that the appellant is very much right to claim the documents on the basis of which the alleged persons/strangers/third parties are depriving the appellant and her sisters from claiming the benefits and advantage conferred by Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj upon the appellant and her sisters so the retention of the documents and information by the postal authority is highly unjust, unwarranted, illegal, arbitrary and irrational. The observation of the learned PIO that the status of the appellant is third party is without any justified and lawful grounds an without any reasonable and probable cause and the learned PIO has not applied its mind judiciously, justly and fairly and has deprived the appellant from the benefit and advantage of the information available with them on the extraneous and irrelevant factor and there was no material and substance for applying the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of Information Act.
vi. Because the learned PIO has totally failed to consider that there is no material on record for applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of Information Act as Smt. RakshaKumari and her son falsely claiming themselves to be legal heirs of late Sh. Sukhdev Raj are creating the continuous hindrance, obstruction, interference on the way of the appellant to enjoy and reap the benefit of amount left behind by Late Sh.
CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 3 Sukhdev Raj in favour of the appellant and her another sisters so the appellant has every legal right, title, interest and authority to have the copy of the application and all the documents relied upon by RakshaKumari @ Raksha Rani and her son on the basis of which the Postal authorities are depriving the appellant from enjoying the benefit and advantage left behind by Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj, so the action of the authority concerned is violation of principle of natural justice, equity, good conscience, fair trial and fair play in action.
4. The First Appellant Authority order dated 11.04.2017:
Smt. PremLata has preferred an appeal dated 19.03.2017 (received in this office on 20.03.2017) against the information provided under RTI Act-2005 by the CPIO/SSPOs Gurdaspur vide letter No. A/GDP/RTI/35/2016-17 dated 02.03.2017.
2. The appellant vide her requested dated 02.02.2017 (received in the office CPIO/SSPOs Gurdaspur on 06.02.2017) had requested for supply of information under RTI Act-2005 in respect of NSCs &KisanPatra related to late Sh. Sukhdev Raj Soni. Some additional contents of the RTI application is not reproduced here for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part & parcel of this para. However, the relevant seven paras vide which certain information was sought by the appellant and response of CPIO/SSPOs Gurdaspur vide his letter No. A/GDP/RTI/35/2016-17 is detailed below:-
Para Information Sought for by the Information Supplied by No. appellant the CPIO/SSPOs Gurdaspur
(i) Please provide me the certified copies It is third party of application/documents submitted information hence it by one claimant Ms. RakshaKumari @ cannot be supplied under Ms. Raksha Rani to your office with Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI regard to the captioned subject i.e. Act, 2005.
Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj Soni in May & July8 2016 along with her authentic identity and eligibility to claim.
(ii) Please provide me the clause of RTI Under Section 8 (1)(j) Act-2005 where the act says that 3rd party information can be given to any one without any inquiry/approval etc.
(iii) Please also provide me the Information provided on information/ certified copies of the the basis of satisfactory concerned officials with name, evidence i.e. aadhaar designation and contact details, who card.
sanctioned/issued the brother's
documents to the above unknown
lady claimant i.e. Ms. Raksha Rani.
(iv) Please also provide me the Information provided on
information/certified copies whether the basis of satisfactory the officers sent a letter or evidence i.e. aadhaar approached the nominees to check or card.
clear that lady is the legal heir or not
CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 4
and the information may be given to
her or not. The applicant and two
sisters are legal heirs of Late Sh.
Sukhdev Raj as per the nominees.
(v) Please also provide me the Information provided on
information as to on what basis the the basis of satisfactory
concerned officials had given the evidence i.e. aadhaar
information to that lady. card.
(vi) Please also provide me the certified Information provided on
copies of the documents/file noting the basis of satisfactory
related to approval/sanction of evidence i.e. aadhaar
documents to the above unknown card.
lady.
(vii) Please also provide me the office E-mail-
email address, telephone no. extn. [email protected]
no., website no. and grievance cell Telephone No.-01874-
no. 246202
3. I have gone through the request of the appellant, reply of the CPIO andcontents of the appeal dispassionately without any bias. The perusal of the case and para-wise comments furnished by CPIO/SSPOs Gurdaspur has unveiled that the appellant had requested to supply certified copies in respect of documents submitted by Ms.RakshaKumari/Rani who had sought certain information under RTI Act-2005 and alleged to be wife of Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj Soni as mentioned herein above. CPIO/SSPOs Gurdaspur had intimated the appellant about inability to provide the certified copies against para (i) being the information related to third party and further responded to the appellant as cited above. Aggrieved with the response of the CPIO, the appellant vide her first appeal alleged that she had been provided with improper, unclear & incomplete information. She has also added up that the information was not furnished with prescribed time frame as per section 7(1) of the Act. The CPIO has reiterated his stand and through para-wise comments he has submitted that information in respect of para no. (i) was denied because the concerned documents as sought by the appellant were of third party i.e. RTI applicant Ms.RakshaKumari @ Ms.Raksha Rani. In respect of points put forth by appellant against supplying the information to an unknown lady against which information was sought under para (iii), (iv), (v) & (vi), the CPIO has submitted that information was supplied to the applicant of earlier RTI request (who has been described as an unknown lady by the appellant) being wife of late Sh. Sukhdev Raj as per ID proof i.e. aadhaar card by the then CPIO.
4. In the light of facts of the case documents & from submissions made by both parties, it has been observed that the exemption clause 8(1)(j) of RTI Act quoted by the CPIO is not appropriate in the instant case earlier it should be proceeded under section 11 of the Act by serving a written notice to third party to obtain her consent for disclosure of information within five days from receipt of RTI request. The CPIO is advised to use correct exemption clauses while replying to the RTI applicants in future. He is also directed to serve a written notice to third party (Smt. RakshaKumari&Raksha Rani) within five days from receipt of CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 5 this order and disclose the requisite information under the consent of third party to the appellant as sought through para (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi). Further, information sought for by the appellant vide point no. (iv) is justification rather than information and in respect of point no. (v) and
(vii), called for information stands supplied to the appellant in context to which no intervention is required. Since, the appellant is claiming herself as legal heir of late Sh. Sukhdev Raj Soni, hence she is also advised to submit the document of her legal heir ship with late Sh. Sukhdev Raj to the office of CPIO/SSPOs Gurdaspur so that the case may be proceeded accordingly. Furthermore, allegation regarding not supplying the information as per Section 7 (1) of RTI Act (within 24 hours desired by the appellant) also does not apply in the instant case because the appellant has not established any grounds which corroborate that her life or liberty was stake. The appeal is thus disposed off accordingly.
5. Under the Right to Information Act-2005 the appellant has the right to file an appeal against this decision to "The Central Information Commissioner, 2nd Floor, August KrantiBhawan, BikajiCama Place, New Delhi-110016" within 90 days of this order.
5. Documents submitted by the appellant shown list of depositaccountswhich are approximately 35 numbers.
6. The Commission's order dated 01.09.2017:
6. Mr. Sandeep Marwah, the appellant's representative stated that the appellant, Ms.PremLataSuri along with her two sisters Ms.Nirmal Chopra and Ms.SudarshanKumari were declared as nominees in the deposit accounts with Post Office of their brother Late Mr.Sukhdev Raj Soni.
7. He represented as follows:Mr.Sukhdev Raj Soni married in 1968 and left in 1971.Ms.Raksha Rani, (not Mrs RakshaKumari) and after sometime, Ms.Raksha Rani left the marital home and her whereaboutswere not known since decades.
Meanwhile another woman, totally unconnected to the family, by name Ms.RakshaKumariexploiting the proximity of her name with the name of his wife (Raksha Rani), claimed herself to be the nominee of the accounts, one year after the death of Mr.Sukhdev Raj Soniwith an intention to appropriate around Rs. 60 Lakh from his accounts; Ms.RakshaKumari filed an RTI application seeking the details of the deposit accounts of Sukhdev Raj Soni and amounts in them, which were provided by the CPIO without looking into any exception or verifying her name with the name of the nominee, available in the accounts; Three intimation letters dated 29.07.2016 from the Post Office, Batalaaddressed to Ms.Raksha Rani asking three sisters as nominees to collect the maturity amount are enough proofs to show that real nominees were these three sisters and not RakshaKumari;When sisters visited the Post Office along with the above letters, the Department refused to make thepayment;Strangely when PremLataSuri filed the RTI application under appeal, the CPIO refused to give details of accounts of Sukhdev Raj Soni, on the excuse that she was seeking third party information, without applying his mind to the fact that she was declared as nominee by account holder Mr.Sukhdev Raj Soni and as a sister she was a legal heir as per Hindu Succession Act; Under these circumstances it is suspected that some persons working in the Post Office might have colluded with Ms.RakshaKumariwho provided the entire information about accounts of about Mr.Sukhdev Raj Soni; They failed deliberately to take into account that both the residential addresses of Raksha Rani and RakshaKumari are totally different; Irony is that when the appellant/nominee/heir/sister filed RTI application seeking CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 6 information about RTI file pertaining toMr.RakshaKumari, the CPIO denied again quoting section 8(1)(j) and the First Appellate Authority supported the denial also under section 11 of RTI Act.
8. The Commission observes that neither the CPIO nor the FAA verified the status of the appellant as one of the nominees on every accountofMr.Sukhdev Raj, which could have led to furnishing of information sought by PremLata. On the other hand, the CPIO of Post Office, Batala has disclosed information to Ms.RakshaKumari, who was, in fact,unconnected to Late Sukhdev Raj, and thus she was neither entitled to information nor the money fromhisaccounts. The Commission finds enough reasons in applicant's suspicion that some personnel of public authority and RakshaKumari were hand in glove in giving information wrongfully to undeserved person, and denying to deserving nominee and heir to the money of Mr Sukhdev Raj.
9. This is a sad example of misuse of RTI by the corrupt personnel of public authority joining hands with the fraudulent personalities. If the CPIO acted diligently and denied information to the unconnected woman, the deposit accounts of Sukhdev Raj would have been safely secured to be handed over to genuine heirs/nominees. By deliberate disclosure to undeserving person, a fraud is facilitated, and by deliberate suppression of information from genuine nominee/applicant/heir and sister denied their right to deposit amounts from her brothers account. This also pushed the three sisters into an unnecessary litigation. It is not known why the Post Office ignored its own intimation letters issued to three sisters and refused their claims thereafter. The misuses of RTI within the post office have dealt a severe blow to the credibility and reputation of the Postal Department, which might frighten away the depositors to leave the post office and deposit in other unsecure financial institutions. Hence this is not just a claim for information by a legal heir but also essential demand for information in public interest. It is surprising that the CPIO, past and present, did not notice this fraud and were trying to give untenable excuses even in second appeal.
10. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the information sought, i.e., a) certified copies of the deposit accounts/receipts and b) documents based on which those accounts were opened including c) applications for them; d) the claims submitted for payments from these accounts, with the e) supporting documents and documents reflecting payments made, if any; along with f) the certified copies of complete file of the RTI application of Ms.RakshaKumari, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The Commission directs Mr. G.C. Goyal, CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information sought by the appellant, before 30.09.2017.
11. The Commission finds that this is a fit case to inquire into as per section 18(1) of RTI Act and directs the office of the Chief Post Master General of Punjab to order an inquiry into this matter, furnish report along with action taken details, including initiation of criminal prosecution if needed, to the appellant marking a copy to the Commission, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The Commission's order dated 23.05.2018:
7. Mr. G C Goyal, the CPIO, vide his submission dated 20.09.2017, explained as under:-
"Most respectfully, it is submitted that the undersigned joined as Supdt. Of Post Office,Gurdaspur, Division on 27.06.2017. The reply on the subject is as under -
1(i). Reply to the para no.7 of the CIC decision referred above is that the RTI applications ofMs.RakshaKumari dated 04.06.2016 seeking the details CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 7 of the deposits accounts of Sh.Sukhdev Raj Soni and amounts in them were disposed off by Sh. Makhan Singh the then CPIOand SSPOs Gurdaspur (now working as SSPOS Amritsar) and provided the information to the said Ms.RakshaKumari vide no.SB-RTI/RakshaKumari/Batala HO dated 01.07.2016, no.SBRTI/RakshaKumari/Krishana Nagar Batala SO dated 01.07.2016,no.SB-RTI/RakshaKuinari/Batala City SG dated 01.07.2016 & no.SB-RTI/RakshaKumari/Nehru GateBatalaSodated 01 .07.2016.
(ii) The RTI application of Smt. PremLataSuri dated 02.02.2017 was also disposed of bymy predecessor SSPOs Sh. Jeth Mal Jingar (who is now working as Dy. Director, PostalTraining Centre, Saharanpur) on02.03.2017 vide no.A/GDP/RTI/35/2016-17 and first appeal ofSmt. PremLata which was received in this office on 20.03.2017 was also dealt with by mypredecessor Sh. Jeth Mal Jingar on24.03.2017 and Smt. MeenakshiYadav, Director Postal Service (R) cum Appellate Authority disposed off the said appeal vide no. CPT-R( 15-15/2017 dated 11.04.2017.Further action regarding seeking consent of Ms.RakshaKumari @ RakshaRani was also dealt with by my predecessor Sh. Jeth Mal Jingar on 17.04 .2017. And finally,information demanded by Smt. PremLata A/GDP/RTI/35/2016-17 by the then CPIO Sh. Jethwas denied on 03.05.2017 videMal Jingar before my joining.
2(i). The undersigned received the CIC notice dated 27.07.2017no.CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 on 02.08.2017 for hearing before Hon'ble InformationCommissioner Mr.Madabhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu on 09.08.2017 at 1115 hrs.at NIC VideoConferencing Studio cum District centre, Civil court Block, DC Office Area, Gurdaspur.
(ii). The hearing was got attended at the scheduled time but due to low connectivity and dueto disturbance in sound, the video conference could not be successful and telephonicconversation was made and suitable reply was given.
3. Further on receipt on 11.09.2017,the CIC Interim Order No. CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 dated 01.09.2017, the undersigned supplied the requisite documents as directed under para no. 10within stipulated time fixed by the CIC vide A/GDP/RTI/35/2016-17 dated 9.09.2017 throughPS Insured No.A-RP6881544218IN dated 20.09.2017.
As the Commissioner has directed the undersigned (CPIO) to show cause why maximumpenalty should not be imposed against him for not famishing the information sought by theappellant, before 30.09.2017, Hon'ble sir, it is very humbly requested that the undersigned hasnot dealt with /disposed off any of the RTI applications either of Ms.RakshaKumari @ RakshaRani or of Smt. PremLata during my incumbency as SSPOs Gurdaspur-cum-CPIO during theperiod 27.06.2017 to till date. Hence, I may kindly be pardoned."
8. Asstt. Director (PG), Punjab Circle, Chandigarh vide his submission dated 01.12.2017, explained as under:-
"I am directed to refer to the interim order cited above on the subject for compliance. Competent authority nominated Dr.Amanpreet Singh, Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ludhiana City Division, Ludhiana as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry into the matter.
CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 8 "Accordingly, Inquiry Officer enquired into the case and submitted his before the competent authority. As per the finding submitted in the report, required action has been taken against the concerned officer Shri Makhan Singh, the then Sr. Supdt. of post officerGurdaspur, (now Senior Superintendent of Post office,Division, Amritsar) for the lapses on his part.( copy of order attached). Further, a copy of complete case for taking action against Shri JethmalJinger,then Sr. Supdt. Of Post offices, of Gurdaspur Division, Gurdaspurand now posted as Deputy Director, Postal Training Centre, Saharanpur has been forwarded to his controlling officer in UP circle for taking immediate action."
They on 01.01.2018, further submitted that the action taken report in respect of the officer Shri JethmalJinger the then Sr. Supdt. ofPostOffices, Gurdaspur, now Deputy Director, PTC, Saharanpur is enclosed for your information.
9. Mr. G. C. Goyal vide letter dated 18.04.2018 submitted as under:-
"Most respectfully, it is submitted that the interim orderCIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 dated 01.09.2017 was received in this office on 11.09.2017and the requisite documents were supplied to the requestor vide this office letter no.even dated 19.09.2017 vide letter dated 20.09.2017 delivered toSmt. PremLataSuri on 23.09.2017 and the reply of interim order dated 01.09.2017 wassubmitted to your office vide this officeletter dated 20.09.201717 vide RL No. RP688172300IN dated 21.09.2017 which was delivered to your kind office on 25.09.2017 So, it is again very humbly requested that the undersigned has not dealt,with/disposed off any of the RTI applications either of Ms.Raksh kumara @ RakshaRani of Smt.PremLata during any incumbency as SPOs Gurdaspur cum CPIOduring the period 27.06.2017 to till date."
10. The appellant submitted that information provided by the respondent authority is not in the form of certified copy. Accordingly, the respondent authority is directed to provide the certified copies of the documents to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
11. As per para 1.4 of Guidelines of DoPT for disclosure under section 4 (at page 94 of the Manual of Office Memoranda by DoPT on RTI), the public authority is supposed to put in public domain the RTI requests and responses given by them. The Public Authority in this case has totally ignored these guidelines. The CPIO has given all information to a third party without examining the privacy clause and claimed that it has done a right thing because he checked up Aadhaar particulars of applicant and provided that information. In response to this RTI application they did not adopt this procedure of checking up Aadhaar and providing information. They simply denied the information under clause 8(1)(j), which cannot be invoked in this case because the appellant is Class II heir, being a sister of the deceased investor. She has a valid interest in the information, whereas Raksha Rani has no such interest. The CPIO has committed gross breach of RTI Act in two cases, one - providing entire information to Raksha Rani, and denying to this applicant.
12. Upon perusal of the records and submissions made by the parties, the Commission is convinced that there is no fault of Mr. G C Goyal as he is not the CPIO who denied the information at time of filing of the RTI application. The Commission alsofinds that explanations given by the respondent authority is CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 9 reasonable and satisfactory. Hence, the penalty proceedings are dropped only against Mr. G C Goyal.
13. The Commission directsMr.JethmalJinger, presently Deputy Director, Postal Training Centre, Saharanpur, the then CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not giving information within 30 days.
14. All the explanations must reach to this Commission on or before 18.07.2018 and the matter is posted for penalty proceedings 18.07.2018.
Decision :
8. In reply of the show-cause notice issued, Mr.JethmalJinger, the then CPIO, has submitted the following:
(A) Facts of the case:
1. That I belong to Rajasthan Postal Circle and further on promotion, allotted and posted to Punjab Circle. In October 2016, I was transferred and joined as Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices Gurdaspur Postal Division. Shri Makhan Singh was in-charge of the Gurdaspur Postal Division. The original RTI application was preferred by Smt. RakshaKumari dated 04.07.2016 was received and dealt disposed off by Shri Makhan Singh the then CPIO cum SSPOs Gurdaspur and final reply was sent on 01.07.2016 to the RTI applicant before my joining as Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Gurdaspur.
2. The information under RTI application was supplied to Smt. Raksha Rani by my predecessor Shri Makhan Singh SSPOs Gurdaspur. Shri Makhan Singh, the then SSPOs Gurdaspur/CPIO has supplied the information to Smt. Raksha Rani by considering her wife of Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj and on the basis of the said information, Smt. Raksha Rani had filed a so called false Civil Suit bearing no. 725/16, which was pending in the court at the time of disposal of RTI application of Smt. PremLata dated 02.02.17 and the matter is sub judice.
3. The RTI application of Ms. PremLata dated 02.02.2017 (Annexure A) was received in my office on 06.02.17 was dealt by me and disposed of vide letter no. A/GDP/RTI/35/2016-17 dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure B). The said reply was within the stipulated time frame of 30 days as prescribed by section 7 of RTI Act.
4. The first appeal against the reply was filed by the appellant/applicant and the same was disposed of by the FAA cum Director Postal Services, Punjab West Region, Chandigarh-160017 vide order dated 11.04.17 (Annexure C). Wherein, the FAA had directed the CPIO to issue a notice to the third party viz., Smt.RakshaKumari @ Raksha Rani and to disclose the requisite information under the consent of third party to the appellant. In compliance of Appellate Order of FAA (Director), Punjab (WR), Chandigarh, a notice was issued to Smt. RakshaKumari, in response of the same, Smt. RakshaKumari expressed that the information was secret third party information and requested not to disclose it to Smt. PremLatavide CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 10 her reply dated 21.04.17 (Annexure D). On receipt of the reply, the matter was disposed of and the appellant was informed accordingly.
5. Thereafter, the appellant had gone for 2nd appeal before the Hon'ble CIC and by that time, I had been transferred from Gurdaspur Division to my present assignment as Deputy Director, PTC, Saharanpur. The order of the CIC was dealt with by my successor Shri G.C. Goyal and as per order of the CIC, the requisite information was supplied by him.
(B) With reference to CIC Show-cause Notice no. CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 dated 23.05.18 in connection with case titled as "PremLata v. PIO Department of Posts", my humble submission is as under:
1. That the reply on the RTI Application of Smt. PremLata dated 02.02.2017 was disposed off within the stipulated time frame of 30 days as prescribed by section 7 of RTI Act. Smt. RakshaKumari has submitted her RTI application dated 04.07.2016 alongwithAdhaar Card, on the basis of which Smt. RakshaKumari @ Raksha Rani was considered as wife of Late Sh.
Sukhdev Raj (First Level Heir). My predecessor Shri Makhan Singh, the then SSPOs Gurdaspur/CPIO has supplied the information to Smt. Raksha Rani by considering her wife of Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj and on the basis of the said information, Smt. Raksha Rani had filed a so-called false Civil Suit bearing no. 725/16, which was pending in the court at the time of disposal of RTI application. There had been no malafide intention on my part in dealing with the matter.
2. The RTI application of Ms. PremLata dated 02.02.17 (Annexure A) was received in my office on 06.02.17 was dealt by me and disposed off vide letter no. A/GDP/RTI/35/2016-17 dated 02.03.17 (Annexure B). The said reply was within the stipulated time frame of 30 days as prescribed by Section 7 of RTI Act in reply of said RTI application I clearly mentioned that the information is third party information hence, it cannot be supplied. I hereby admitted my mistake that exemption class 8(1)(j) of RTI Act quoted by me is a typographic mistake, the same should be proceeded under section 11 RTI Act.
3. FAA cum Director Postal Services, Punjab West Region, Chandigarh- 160017 vide order dated 11.04.17 (Annexure C). Confirm my action to consider the applicant Smt. PremLata as a third party and also directed the CPIO to take action according to Section 11 of RTI Act and issue a notice to Smt. RakshaKumari @ Raksha Rani and to disclose the requisite information under to the appellant under the consent of Smt. RakshaKumari. In compliance of Appellate Order of FAA (Director), Punjab (WR), Chandigarh, a notice was issued to Smt. RakshaKumari, in response of which, Smt. RakshaKumari expressed that the information was secret third party information and requested not to disclose it to Smt. PremLata vide her reply dated 21.04.17 (Annexure D). On receipt of the reply, the matter was disposed off and the applicant was informed accordingly.
4. Further, in consequence to the Commission's orders issued vide para 6 (11) of the order as referred to above, an inquiry into the case was CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 11 conducted by the Chief Postmaster General, Punjab and the matter was referred to the Director, Postal Training Centre, Saharanpur for taking suitable note. In compliance of the same, my explanation was called for and the same was submitted by me vide letter dated 28.11.17 (Annexure E). Wherein, I had explained my position asserting that no malafide intention was involved in dealing with the matter. The said explanation was accepted by the competent authority and I was severely warned and directed to avoid this kind of lapses in future (Annexure F).
5. The appellant Smt. PremLata in her second appeal, to the Hon'ble CIC, also admitted that Smt. RakshaKumari left Sh. Sukhdev Raj (her husband's) company about 45 years back and never come back. As per appeal, Sh. Sukhdev Raj who died on 28.08.2015 has prepared a will vide which he had declared and affirmed that his wife Smt. RakshaKuamri and son were staying away for about last 45 years from him. Both the above facts confirm the status of the RakshaKumari as wife of Late Sh. Sukhdev Raj. It is an established fact that Smt. RakshaKumari was wife of late Sh. Sukhdev Raj.
6. The lapses allegedly committed by me as the second CPIO have been suitably dealt with by the competent authorities and the matter has finally been put to rest by issuing the reprimands as stated in para 4 above. I accordingly aver that there had been no delay in supplying the information to the applicants by me as the CPIO. Moreover the words of caution have been administered to me by way of formal reprimands which I do accept with all humbleness.
7. One civil suit has already been filed by Smt. RakshaKumari @ Raksha Rani in which Supdt. of Post Offices, Guardspur/CPIO was made party and the summons to this effect was served on 11.08.16 before my joining as SSPOs Guardspur and thus, the case is sub judice at the time of disposal of RTI application of Smt. PremLata on 02.03.17.
I, accordingly humbly pray the Hon'ble Commission to drop the proceedings for imposing the penalty. I, however, assure the Hon'ble Commission that lapses of the kind noticed on my part in dealing with the RTI matters shall not be allowed to be recurred in future.
I once again want to pray that I may kindly be pardoned for the mistake done by me in inadvertently and proposed penalty may kindly not be imposed.I shall always remain grateful to your kind honour for this act of kindness.
9. Mr. G. C.Goel, the CPIO, Gurdaspur assured the Commissions that part of payment with regard to account of Mr.SukhdevRaj has been released to the appellant, whereas the appellant submitted that Nehru Gate Post office has stopped the payment. In view of the records and submissions made byMr.JethmalJinger, the Commission finds that Mr.Jinger has replied the RTI application without application oh his mind and also admitted that it is his CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 12 mistake that exemption class 8(1)(j) of RTI Act quoted was a typographic mistake, the same should be proceeded under section 11 RTI Act. The information was provided only afterthe order of the Commission. In view of the above positions, the Commission finds it a fit case to impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.Hence, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) on the CPIO Mr.JethmalJinger. The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand)shall be deducted by the Public Authority from the salary of thethen CPIO Mr.JethmalJinger,by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO CAT", New Delhi in two monthly instalments of each @ 5000/-(five thousand) and forward the demand draft addressed to Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.The first instalment should reach to this Commission on or before 15.11.2018 and last instalment by 15.12.2018.Disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/POSTS/C/2017/139615 Page 13