Central Information Commission
Mallikarjun vs Department Of Posts on 22 October, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081
In the matter of:
Mallikarjun ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO cum ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Asst. Accounts Officer (A&P),
Department of Posts,
Bengaluru
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.03.2018 FA : 04.06.2018 SA : 05.12.2018
CPIO : 11.04.2018 FAO : 27.06.2018 Hearing : 21.10.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Mallikarjun, heard through video conferencing.
Page 1 of 8
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081
Respondent: Smt. Roopashree, Assistant Accounts Officer, Department of Posts,
Bengaluru, heard through audio conferencing.
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 20.03.2018, seeking information on two points for the period 2013 - 2017 pertaining to the Group A officers who are drawing reimbursement of tuition fee for their children along with those who have adopted children, including;
1. Provide details of expenditure received from official treasury. Information be provided regarding every draw, the amount withdrawn and those who have adopted children along with relevant documents.
2. Provide certified copy of approval issued by Child and woman development department in this regard.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 11.04.2018, provided point wise reply (four points) to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.06.2018. FAA, vide order dated 27.06.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of incomplete reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to take disciplinary action and impose penalty on the concerned CPIO.Page 2 of 8
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081 Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the respondent, vide reply dated 11.04.2018, has furnished partial information in response to his RTI application. He further submitted that the adoption certificate has not been provided to him till date on the ground that the original documents are not available in respondent's office. On being queried regarding the larger public interest in seeking such information, the appellant submitted that since the educational fund consists of taxes/money paid by tax payers, details of its appropriation must be made available to the public at large.
The respondent submitted that vide reply dated 11.04.2018, the appellant was duly furnished with the name of the only beneficiary of reimbursement of tuition fee scheme along with the other relevant details. However, the adoption certificate could not be furnished to the appellant as the aforesaid beneficiary was transferred to Dharwad in the year 2017 and accordingly, her service book was also transferred to her place of posting. She further submitted that since service book is essential to obtain details regarding the place of adoption, etc., due to non- availability of the service book, complete information could not be furnished to the appellant. She furthermore submitted that since the adoption papers relate to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party, the concerned third party was contacted by the respondent on 20.10.2020 in order to obtain her consent to furnish the adoption papers. However, the third party concerned refused to disclose the same. In response to a query, the respondent submitted that the said consent was obtained verbally.Page 3 of 8
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081 The appellant contented that if the service book was not available in their office, the respondent should have transferred the RTI application to the concerned division as per the provision contained in Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
In its reply, the respondent submitted that since the then CPIO, Shri Narasimha Swamy, was not sure as to where the service book was, he did not transfer the RTI application.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, where an application is made to a public authority but the subject matter of the RTI application pertains to another public authority, the CPIO of the public authority receiving the RTI application has to transfer the same to the public authority concerned within five days of the receipt of the application. In the present case, however, the then CPIO, Shri Narasimha Swamy, vide reply dated 11.04.2018, instead of transferring of application to the concerned authority merely stated that the information sought for is not available in their office. This merely indicates the vacuous and lackadaisical approach towards matters relating to RTI. The Commission takes a very serious view of this lapse. The public information officers are entrusted with the responsibility of providing information to the citizen under the RTI Act. It is expected that the CPIO on receipt of a request shall as expeditiously as possible provide the information sought for by the applicant. The Commission also refers to the judgement 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:Page 4 of 8
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081 "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 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 held as follows:
"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 also 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 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 Page 5 of 8 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081 expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
In light of the above noted judgments and considering the facts of the case, the Commission observes that the then CPIO did not discharge his responsibility properly. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to note that, not only the then CPIO failed to comply by the provisions of the RTI Act, the FAA also disregarded the same. The Commission is severely vexed by the non-adherence of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by the respondent public authority and counsels the then CPIO, Shri Narasimha Swamy as well as the then FAA to remain more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.
A copy of this order is also marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse remarks.
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 Commission, further, agrees with the respondent that adoption certificate is personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the respondent to furnish a categorical reply to the appellant with respect to the adoption documents sought by him, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
Page 6 of 8CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081 With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 21.10.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) : To take action as per the order / Director of Postal Services (HQ), of the Commission.
Department of Posts, O/o The Chief Postmaster General, Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru-560001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) /Asst. Accounts Officer (A&P), Department of Posts, O/o The Chief Postmaster General, Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru-560001 Page 7 of 8 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081
3. Shri Mallikarjun Page 8 of 8