Central Information Commission
Shri. R Natarajan vs High Court on 15 March, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001345 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Date of decision : 15 March 2012 Name of the Appellant : Shri R. Natarajan 398, 39th Street, T.V.S. Avenue, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai - 600 101.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant had filed the second appeal on 14 February 2011. In the normal course, on firstcome firstserved basis, this case would come up for hearing sometime later. However, with a view to expediting a decision early, we have decided to take up the case now without hearing the parties.
3. It appears the Appellant was working as the Additional District Judge in the FastTrack Court I in Tindivanam and was compulsorily retired from service by an order dated 10 September 2004 on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee of the Madras High Court. It also appears that the reason for the compulsory retirement was given as the confidential report, work done statement and the latest vigilance report. In the RTI application filed on 18 July 2010, he wanted to get a copy of the said vigilance report. The CPIO CIC/SM/A/2011/001345 forwarded a copy of the vigilance particulars but did not enclose a copy of the vigilance report, if any. Against this, the Appellant preferred an appeal. Thereafter, in a letter dated 10 March 2011, the copies of the DO Letter, confidential report, work done statement and the vigilance report were sent to the Appellant.
4. From a careful scrutiny of the records, it appears that the above records had been sent to the Appellant after he had already sent his second appeal to the CIC on 14 February 2011. Now that the desired records have already been sent to him, there is nothing more to be disclosed by way of information.
5. However, the CPIO owes an explanation for sending the information so very late. The RTI application had been filed on 18 July 2010, the first response was sent on 29 September 2010 and the complete information was sent on 10 March 2011. As per the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, all such information should have been sent within 30 days of receiving the RTI application. By providing the information so very late, the CPIO has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Before deciding on the penalty, we would like to hear the explanation of the CPIO concerned. We, therefore, direct that the officer who had received the RTI application but had failed to provide the complete information within the stipulated period of 30 days to appear before the Commission on 26 April 2012 at 11.45 a.m. for hearing through videoconferencing (N.I.C., State Informatics Centre, E2A, Rajaji Bhawan, 1st Floor, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600090 (Contact OfficersMr. Nehru & Ms. Anandhi & Contact Nos.: 0442491 7850 / 24902580 / 2446 6495) and offer his explanation. If he would fail to give any satisfactory CIC/SM/A/2011/001345 explanation, we will be constrained to decide on the penalty without giving him any further opportunity.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/001345