Central Information Commission
Mrs. S. R. Malhotra vs Office Of The Addl. Health Officer, ... on 31 March, 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/2010/000122/6924Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000122
Appellant : Mrs. S. R. Malhotra,
H. No.1, Behind Masjid,
Jung Pura Extension
New Delhi - 110014
Respondent : Mr. Mukul Saxena,
Dealing clerk and deemed PIO
Office of the Addl. Health Officer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
M&CW section, Town Hall,
Delhi-110006
RTI application filed on : 24/08/2009
PIO replied : 23/09/2009
First Appeal filed on : 15/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal filed on : 14/01/2009
Sl. Information sought PIO's reply
1. Provide certified copy of appellant's Copy of document can be provided on
service book along with noting/orders if deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page
any
2. Provide certified copy of action taken Action taken report is not available in the
report for re-fixation of pension & record, however pay has been refixed at
payment of arrear as per appellants Rs. 7600/- on date of retirement &
application dated 11th august 2007 sent to revised LPC issued & sent to the Office
office on 12/08/2007 through speed post, of AO for revision of pension
provide reason for non taking action.
3 Provide certified copy of reply filed on Copy of document can be provided on
behalf of MCD as referred in the ending deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page
paragraph of H.C. of Delhi order dated As regard allegation of discrimination is
28th Nov. 2008 in case of concern the same is totally false &
WP(C)1918/2004 frivolous
Under what circumstances appellant have
not been paid dues/arrears if others
already paid which amount to
discrimination & harassment & financial
loss to applicant
4 Provide certified copy of drawn & due Co-applicants Smt. Gurjit Kaur &
statements of the bills with total amount Indrajit Kaur both are drawing salary
paid along with voucher nos. amount paid from HQ as per HC order
mode of payment & date of payment to
LHV's who were co-applicants with
appellant in case
5 Provide certified copy of office order no. Copy of document can be provided on
Page 1 of 4
M&CW/2009/264 dated 02/03/2009 deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page
6 Certified copy of the approval of Copy of document can be provided on
commissioner (MCD) dated 27/01/2009 deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page
w.e.f 01/01/1973 in terms of HC. Of
Delhi dated 28/11/2008
7 Provide certified copy of Pertaining to the office of accounts
documents/affidavits submitted by officer (HQ) Town Hall
officials of M&CW section of MCD in
HC
8 Provide certified copy of office order no. Copy of document can be provided on
M&CW/2009/2185 dated 09/02/2009 deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page
along with copy of permission granted by
MCD for payment to respondent in the
matter of HC decision no.
WP(C)1918/2004
9 Provide copy of duty list of Mr. Mukul Copy of document can be provided on
Saxena deposit of requisite fees at 2/-Rs per page
Grounds for First Appeal:
PIO reply is unsatisfactory & not reference to the context of appellant's application
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
No order
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Incomplete misleading, false information provided
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mrs. S. R. Malhotra;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant had given a letter dated 12/02/2010 stating that she wanted to
withdraw the appeal in this matter. The Appellant had sought a photocopy of her
service book alongwith notings and orders on 24/08/2009. On 23/09/2009 the PIO Dr.
Renu Chopra sent a letter to the Appellant asking her to pay Rs.2/- per page as
additional fee without indicating how many pages were involved and how much
money she should pay. Hence she could not pay the amount. She mentioned this in
the fist appeal which she filed on 15/10/2009. The First Appellate Authority has not
given any order in the matter.
The Appellant states that on 12/02/2010 she was called to the office by telephone and
Mr. Mukul Saxena, Dealing Clerk told her that a cheque of Rs.138607/- due to her on
account of difference of pay was ready and would be given to her if she gave a letter
withdrawing the appeal before the Commission. To obtain her dues she has signed a
letter withdrawing the appeal. The Commission sees such a move of coercing an
appellant to withdraw her appeal as despicable move and will take strict action against
officers who act in such a manner. The information sought by the Appellant has not
been provided to her at all.
Decision dated 22/02/2010:
The appeal was allowed. The PIO Dr. Renu Chopra, Additional Director (Hospital
Administration) was directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant
before 10 March 2010.
Page 2 of 4
As the issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO Dr. Renu Chopra, Additional Director(Hospital
Administration) within 30 days as required by the law. Mr. Mukul Saxena dealing
clerk appears to be responsible for coercing the appellant to withdraw the appeal.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO and deemed PIO are
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 and Deemed PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of
Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed
give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied
on them.
The PIO Dr. Renu Chopra, Additional Director(Hospital Administration) and Mr.
Mukul Saxena, Dealing Clerk will present themselves before the Commission at the
above address on 31 March 2010 at 11.00AM alongwith their written submissions
showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under
Section 20 (1). They 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 them.
Facts emerging during the show cause hearing held on 31 March 2010:
Appellant: Mrs. S. R. Malhotra Respondent: Dr. Renu Chopra, PIO;
Mr. Mukul Saxena, dealing clerk and deemed PIO The PIO, Dr. Renu Chopra has made submissions in which he has stated that the Dealing Clerk Mr. Mukul Saxena is responsible for the delay in providing the complete information to the Appellant.
Mr. Mukul Saxena states that he never asked the Appellant to withdraw the appeal and did not put pressure for doing so. The Appellant had a grievance hat her payment was due and that was attended to. A cheque was made on 12/02/2010 and delivered to the Appellant. The Appellant voluntarily withdrew her Appeal as the grievance was settled.
Information with regard to Query No. 3 has been handed over to the Appellant in front of the Commission. Mr. Mukul Saxena states that the reason for the delay was that the information had to be collated from different zones. This took a lot of time. However, he shows that he only sent the request for information from the other zones in March 2010 after the decision of the Commission.
The Deemed PIO Mr. Mukul Saxena is directed to ensure that the service book of the Appellant is completed with all the entries before 15 May 2010.
The Appellant has suffered very grievously and been harassed in trying to obtain her own dues from the place where she worked for many hears.
The Deemed PIO Mr. Mukul Saxena was asked for the reasons for the delay in providing the information. He states that he had to seek information from different sources which he had done in March 2010. He was asked to give reasons why did not ask from information from other offices before this. He states that he has a lot of court Page 3 of 4 cases and hence he did not get time to reply the RTI application. The Deemed PIO Mr. Mukul Saxena has not been able to give any reasonable explanation for not supplying the information within the time stipulated in the RTI Act. The Appellant who is a senior citizen and a retired employee should have actually got her dues. She has used the tool of Right to Information on 25/08/2009 and yet being made to wait endlessly. She has got small part of her dues and yet is struggling to get the balance dues. Mr. Mukul Saxena denies having asked the appellant to withdraw her appeal.
The Commission does not see any reasonable cause having been offered by Mr. Mukul Saxena for not providing the information within the mandated period. The Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Since the delay has been over 100 days the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of Rs.25000/- on Mr. Mukul Saxena.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Mukul Saxena, Dealing clerk and deemed PIO Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Mukul Saxena for Rs. 25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25000/- from the salary of Mr. Mukul Saxena and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Mukul Saxena and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from May 2010. The total amount of Rs.25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2010.
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 31 March 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SR) 1- Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066 Page 4 of 4