Central Information Commission
D P Bhatia vs Cbec on 4 August, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066, website:cic.gov.in
Complaint No.:-CIC/SA/C/2016/000002/CBECM/BJ
Complaint : Mr. D P Bhatia
Respondent : CPIO
O/o. the Commissioner of Service Tax,
Delhi-1, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 03.08.2017
Date of Decision : 03.08.2017
Date of filing of RTI applications 24.06.2015
CPIO's response 21/23.07.2015
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of complaint by the 17.12.2015
Commission
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought copy of his ACR for the year 2013-2014 during which he was posted in Division -I of the erstwhile Commissionerate of Service Tax, Delhi as a Superintendent.
The CPIO/Dy. Commissioner Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-I vide its letter dated 21/23.07.2015 requested the CPIO/Asst. Commissioner, O/o Pr. Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi-II to provide a copy of the Appellant's ACR to him since the same was sent to their office vide office letter dated 19.02.2015. Dissatisfied by non-receipt of any information, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. D P Bhatia;
Respondent: Mr. S. S. Chauhan, CPIO/Asst. Commissioner;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no information had been provided to him, till date. It was further alleged that the then CPIO had failed to comply with the provision of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act,2005 in transferring his RTI application to the concerned Commissionerate within a period of 05 days, which was expressly evident in the letter of the CPIO dated 21/23.07.2015. He made strong objection to the callous approach adopted by the Respondent Public Authority in dealing with his RTI application wherein it was stated that no response had been provided to him regarding his ACR details. It was alleged that his ACR for the relevant period was in possession of the Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-Page 1 of 4
II and the Respondent Public Authority should inquire into the matter and provide his ACR for the year 2013-2014. Despite persistent persuasion, no response had been forthcoming.
In reply, the Respondent submitted that the CPIO of the erstwhile Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-I vide its letter dated 21/23.07.2015 had transferred the RTI application to CPIO, Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-II since the relevant matter pertained to their jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Service Tax Commissionerate underwent a complex process of cadre restructuring during the month of October, 2014 involving the mammoth task of carving out eight different Commissionerates from the erstwhile Commissionerate, Delhi. It was explained that a huge responsibility was cast upon the officers of the Respondent Public Authority to complete the process of segregation of large number of records/files and their subsequent transfer to their respective new jurisdictional Commissionerates in a time bound manner. Subsequently, the Department further underwent a reorganisation w.e.f. 22.06.2017 with the rollout of GST and the process of transfer of old records and files were yet to be processed. It was also submitted that sincere efforts were made by him to procure the old records and to ascertain the reasons for no reply being sent to the Complainant. Thereafter, it was observed by the Respondent Public Authority that the Complainant was promoted to the post of Asst. Commissioner vide the order of the Ministry dated 22.10.2014 and had already retired from the Department on 30.04.2015. It was contended that his relevant ACR folder was transferred to Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-II and thereafter to Audit Commissionerate with his respective transfers. It was further explained that he had made due enquiries from the concerned Departments regarding the Complainant's ACRS, and both the erstwhile Commissionerate-II and Audit Commissionerate had stated that the relevant ACR for the year was not available in their office.
An objection was raised by the Respondent regarding the non-filing of First Appeal by the Complainant for seeking the requisite information and therefore contended that the Complainant was not serious regarding his information but was trying to frame the CPIO for penalty imposition under the RTI Act, 2005. However, the Respondent agreed to the delay caused in transferring the RTI application of the Appellant u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 and sought unconditional apology from the Commission for the delay caused in responding to the RTI application of the Complainant.
On hearing both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission noted that the RTI application of the Complainant received by the then CPIO had not been timely transferred to the concerned CPIO, as per the provision of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was also observed that the duty of the CPIO was not limited to forwarding of the RTI application to the respective departments/division of the Public Authority but to make a sincere effort in providing a suitable response to the Complainant, keeping in view the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
In this context, the Commission referred to the Hon'ble Delhi High court decision in Ministry Of Railways Through ... vs Girish Mittal on 12 Page 2 of 4 September, 2014 (W.P.(C) 6088/2014 & CM Nos.14799/2014, 14800/2014 & 14801/2014) wherein it was held as under:
"15. The plain language of Section 6(3) of the Act indicates that the public authority would transfer the application or such part of it to another public authority where the information sought is more closely connected with the functions of the other authority. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act is clearly misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not a case where penalty has been imposed with respect to queries which have been referred to another public authority, but with respect to queries that were to be addressed by the public authority of which petitioner no. 2 is a Public Information Officer. Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that
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.
9. "The Supreme Court as far back as in Secretary, Haila Kandi Bar Association Vs. State of Assam 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 736 reminded the high ranking officers generally, not to mechanically forward the information collected through subordinates. The RTI Act has placed confidence in the objectivity of a person appointed as the PIO and when the PIO mechanically forwards the report of his subordinates, he betrays a casual approach shaking the confidence placed in him and duties the probative value of his position and the report."
The Commission noted that in the Complaint filed before the Commission the Complainant pressed for penal action against the respondent under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also desired to seek the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that there was a delay caused in transferring the RTI application as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, instructs the then CPIO Mr. Saroj Kumar Behara presently Jt. Director, Directorate General of Export Promotion, Ministry of Finance, Department of Page 3 of 4 Revenue , Hotel Janpath, 1st floor, New Delhi - 110 001 to showcause why action should not be taken as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The reply should reach the Commission, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Complainant.
Furthermore, the Commission advises the respondent that a more sympathetic approach should be adopted by the public authority in resolving issues concerning retired employees/pensioners. Ageing not only brings with it physical challenges but also economic and social insecurity which needs to be kept in mind. The public authority needs to sensitize its officers and staff on the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and its implementation in letter and spirit.
The Complaint stands disposed with above direction.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copy to:
1- Mrs. Archana Pandey, Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, C.R Building, I.P Estate, New Delhi-110109.
(with the instruction to inquire into this matter through a Sr. Official and fix responsibility and accountability for negligence and dereliction of duty with regard to the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005. The Report should be submitted to the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Complainant.) Page 4 of 4