Central Information Commission
Nikhila H vs The English And Foreign Languages ... on 3 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/TEFLU/A/2017/139372-BJ
Dr. Nikhila H.
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Registrar,
The English and Foreign Languages University,
Hyderabad 500605
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.08.2018
Date of Decision : 03.09.2018
Date of RTI application 27.02.2017
CPIO's response 31.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 03.04.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the names of those faculty members of the EFL University who were appointed as Readers/Associate Professors with an Academic Grade pay of 8000 at the time of their appointment in 2009 and 2010, for whom the AGP was retrospectively changed to 9000, subsequently at the time of their promotion to the post of Professor through CAS, quantum of financial benefits accrued to those Readers/Associate Professors, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 31.05.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Nikhila H. through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Muralidhar Tadi, PIO/ Jt. Registrar through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of her RTI application and stated that partial information had been received by her in this matter. Further, it was informed that no documents and copy of Page 1 of 3 office orders had been furnished by the Respondent Public Authority (EFL University, Hyderabad). It was articulated that the information sought pertained to her life and career, therefore the same should be provided expeditiously. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the point-wise response had already been given to the Appellant as per their records and for some points, they had forwarded the application to the concerned section for furnishing replies. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and submitted that the information provided to her was vague and ambiguous in nature. It was alleged that the Respondent deliberately and malafidely withheld the information sought by her due to certain wrongdoings in the selection process and that she should be furnished all the details required by her in the spirit of transparency envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005. During the hearing, the Respondent remained evasive and unclear about its conduct in answering the queries raised by the Appellant. It however, maintained that the information sought from various divisions was not retrievable and hence the delay.
After hearing both the parties at length, the Commission noted that the complete and satisfactory information had not been provided to the Appellant by the CPIO and also information was not provided within the stipulated time period as prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission therefore referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.
It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act." The Commission also observed that there is a complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, Page 2 of 3 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it was evident that the CPIO had failed to respond timely in each of the points raised by the Appellant. The Commission therefore directs the Vice-Chancellor to enquire into the whole matter and furnish point-wise reply to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is also expected of the VC as Head of the University to fix accountability and responsibility on the CPIO for its failure to furnish information within the stipulated time period.
The Respondent is also cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 of the Act shall be initiated.
The Commission furthermore observed that there was lack of clarity in respect of the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, it instructed the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 03.09.2018
Copy to:
1. The Secretary, D/o Higher Education, M/o HRD, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
2. Prof. E. Suresh Kumar, Vice Chancellor, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad 500605 Page 3 of 3