Central Information Commission
Mr. Rajan Bahati vs Department Of Training & Tech ... on 6 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000137/6982Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000137
Appellant : Mr. Rajan Bahati,
A-175, PKT III, DDA Flats,
Bindapur Complex, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110059
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Department of Training & Tech
Education, Govt. of NCT Delhi,
Muni Maya Ram Marg,
Pitampura, Delhi-110088
RTI application filed on : 15/07/2009
PIO replied : 12/08/2009
First Appeal filed on : 08/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal Received on : 14/01/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 27/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 26/02/2010
Information sought:
Appellant wanted to inspect and take authenticate photocopies:
i. of all the ACRs commencing 1991 onwards to till date. ii. Of all the relevant documents from ACRs Dosiers maintained by DTTE PIO's Reply:
"That the information sought by the Appellant are barred as it contains the remarks made by the superior officers and are treated as confidential information."
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information was not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant requested information as per his RTI application.
Relevant Facts emerges during the Hearing 26 February 2010: "The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajan Bahati;
Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Chander, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director;
The First Appellate Authority Mr V. K. Jain Additional Secretary is guilty of dereliction of duty since he had not passed any order in the matter.
The First Appellate Authority Mr V. K. Jain Additional Secretary is directed to Present himself before the Commission on 06 April 2010 at 11.30AM alongwith his written submission to showcause why the Commission should not recommend disciplinary action against him for dereliction of duty.
The PIO has refused to give the appellant an inspection of his own ACRs from 1999 onwards stating that this is exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has also argued that the Supreme himself has ruled that the ACRs must be shown to him. Besides in the RTI Act the PIO's claim of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is completely untenable. How a person can invade his own privacy is beyond any logical thinking.
The Respondent states that the person responsible for denying the information was the then PIO Mr. V. K. Beniwal, Joint Secretary.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the inspection of the ACR and provide a copy of his ACRs which he cants free of cost on 04 March 2010 at 2.30PM.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then PIO Mr. V. K. Beniwal, Joint Secretary within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
The then PIO Mr. V. K. Beniwal, Joint Secretary will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 06 April 2010 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him."
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 06 April 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. V. K. Beniwal, the then PIO & Joint Secretary;
Mr V. K. Jain Additional Secretary & First Appellate Authority; The First Appellate Authority Mr. V. K. Jain states that he had passed an order on 21/10/2009 ordering that a copy of the DOPT guidelines dated 14 May 2009 should be given to him which was accordingly given and received by the Appellant. The PIO states that he had gone on the earlier decision of the Commission in 2006 and hence claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j). The commission accepts the explanation of the FAA and the PIO and drops the penalty proceedings against the PIO as well as the proceedings against the FAA. The Commission would however like to point to both that unnecessary hearing like in current one are a huge burden on the public exchequer and unnecessary waste of time. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 06 April 2010 ( (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj