Central Information Commission
Shrabani Mondal vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 11 February, 2019
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba GangnathMarg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/159893-BJ
Ms. Shrabani Mondal
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Prof., & Head, D/o Hospital Administration
AIIMS, Ansari Nagar
New Delhi-110029
2. Nodal CPIO & Administrative Officer
RTI Cell, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar
New Delhi-110029
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2019
Date of Decision : 11.02.2019
Date of RTI application 17.04.2017(mentioned
in second appeal)
CPIO's response 22.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 05.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 26.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding her absence report and how an absence report had been sent for 04.06.2016 despite the fact that she had joined the office on 04.06.2016, copy of medical certificate from 30.05.2016 to 06.06.2016 etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 22.05.2017 for points 01 to 04 enclosed the reply of Administrative (H.) to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 26.07.2017 concurred with the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:Page 1 of 5
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Shrabani Mondal (Sr. Nursing Officer); Respondent: Dr. Sidharth Satpathy, CPIO and Mr. G. R. Pillai, CAPIO arrived late;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of her RTI application and stated that the complete and satisfactory information had not been received by her, till date. It was further alleged that the absence report sent by the Competent Authority i.e. DNS was wrong and misleading. Moreover, it was informed that she had taken earned leave for the above said period which was erroneously recorded as medical leave by the Respondent Public Authority. The Respondent present during the hearing while tendering their unconditional apology for the delay in his arrival for the hearing, submitted that CPIO/FAA had responded suitably in the matter as per the available records, within the stipulated time period. As regards clerical mistakes apparent in the absence report of the Appellant, it was assured that the same would be rectified forthwith. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 01.02.2019 wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, it was submitted that the CPIO had provided a response to the Appellant on 22.05.2017 explaining the factual position in the matter and the FAA had also passed an order vide letter dated 26.07.2017. As regards the jurisdictional authority of the DNS/ANS, it was explained that it varied depending upon the contingencies of the situation.
Several other matters filed by the Appellant were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/YA/A/2016/002432 + CIC/YA/A/2016/002431 + CIC/YA/A/2016/002393 CIC/YA/A/2016/002392 + CIC/YA/A/2016/002391+ CIC/YA/A/2016/002390 dated 28.07.2017 and CIC/YA/A/2016/001973 + CIC/YA/A/2016/001974 + CIC/YA/A/2016/001975 + CIC/YA/A/2016/001976 + CIC/YA/A/2016/001977 + CIC/YA/A/2016/001978 + CIC/YA/A/2016/001979 + CIC/YA/A/2016/001980 dated 18.07.2016 The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.Page 2 of 5
Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
It was also felt that providing a clear and cogent response was the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision 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 Page 3 of 5 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."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
DECISION:Page 4 of 5
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and in the light of the sensitivities involved in the matter, the Commission advised the Respondent to exercise with due diligence and examine the RTI application and furnish a clear, cogent and precise response to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also instructs 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 (अिभ मािणत स$यािपत ित) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 11.02.2019 Copy to:
1. Dr. D. K. Sharma, Medical Superintendent and First Appellate Authority, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029
2. Chief Nursing Officer, D/o Hospital Administration, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi- 110029 Page 5 of 5