Central Information Commission
Mr.Parasaram Ganesh vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 9 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000921/9242Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000921
Complainant : Mr. Parasaram Ganesh
SSA, EPFO, SSO, Whitefield
Lakshmi Complex, Old Madras Rd.
KR Puram, Bangalore- 560036
Respondent 1)- Mr. K. Narayanan, RPFC-II
Bangalore Region, EPFO, Ministry of Labour
Govt. of India, 13, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd., PB No. 25146
Bangalore- 560025
Respondent 2- Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao, APFC (Admin-II);
Bangalore Region, EPFO, Ministry of Labour
Govt. of India, 13, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd., PB No. 25146
Bangalore- 560025
Respondent 3- Mrs. Nandni, Assistant Director (IS);
Bangalore Region, EPFO, Ministry of Labour
Govt. of India, 13, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd., PB No. 25146
Bangalore- 560025
Events Chronologically:
• RTI Application - 12/10/2009
• No information provided by the PIO
• Complaint - 01/07/2010
• Notice - 14/07/2010
- Information to be provided
to the Complainant before - 08/08/2010
- Copy of information &
PIO's explanation to be sent
to the Commission before - 18/08/2010
• Response of the PIO
to the Notice - 17/08/2010
Facts arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Parasaram Ganesh filed a RTI application with the CAPIO & RPFC-I, Regional Office, 13, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd, Bangalore, on 12/10/2009 asking for certain information. However on not having received the information within the mandated time, a Complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, EPFO, Regional Office, 13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd., Bangalore- 25, on 14/07/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
Page 1 of 4The Commission received a letter dated 17/08/2010 from the CAPIO & Asst. PF Commissioner, Bangalore Region, EPFO, 13, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd, wherein it was stated that the Complainant has been furnished with the information vide letter dated 08/08/2010 as sought by him in his RTI Application dated 12/10/2009. Further, it was also stated that a delay ensued in providing information to the Complainant as the said information was not readily available and the same had to be collected from different branches. The Commission observes that the explanation for the delay of over 270 days does not appear to be reasonable. Further, it is noted that w.r.t. Query No. 9 of the RTI Application, which correlates to Answer No. 13 of the CAPIO's reply dated 08/08/2010, the information was not provided to the Complainant as the CAPIO & Asst. PF Commissioner, Bangalore Region, EPFO, claimed an exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI act, 2005 as the information is personal in nature and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public authority or interest. The Commission further observes that no explicit reason has been mentioned by the CAPIO for not providing information w.r.t. Query No. 9 of the RTI Application dated 12/10/2009.
Commission's Decision dated 06/09/2010:
The Complaint was allowed.
"The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the CAPIO & Asst. PF Commissioner, Bangalore Region, EPFO, 13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd, 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 CAPIO's actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
The CAPIO & Asst. PF Commissioner, Bangalore Region, EPFO, 13, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd, Bangalore, is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 20/10/2010 at 4:00pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the CAPIO may serve this notice to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and direct them to be present before the Commission along with him on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The CAPIO should also bring along proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any. Further, the CAPIO is directed to include in his written submissions reasons for invoking an exemption under section 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20 October 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. B. S. Ramesh, CAPIO & Assistant PF Commissioner;
"The CAPIO states that information on all points except no.9 have been provided to the appellant on 08/08/2010. The Commission examined his reasons for refusing the information under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) for query-9. These reasons do not justify non disclosure of information. Besides it is necessary that a PIO must give reasons for refusal of information with 30 days of receiving the information and not dream up the exemptions later on. The respondent has stated that the RTI application had been received on 14/10/2009 and the CPIO & RPFC-II Mr. K. Narayanan took no action but on 20/11/2009 he sought the assistance of Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao, APFC (Admin- II); Mrs. Nandni, Assistant Director (IS) and APFC (Compliance) Mr. Mehboob Ganiyar. Some of the information was to be provided by Mr. K. Narayanan himself as RPFC(Admin-I). All of them except APFC (Compliance) Mr. Mehboob Ganiyar provided information in August 2010. Mr. Mehboob Ganiyar provided the information on 13/01/2010.
The Commission issues a showcause notice to Mr. K. Narayanan, RPFC-II; Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao, APFC (Admin-II); Mrs. Nandni, Assistant Director (IS) and APFC (Compliance) Mr. Mehboob Ganiyar to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be levied on them for failing to provide the information within 30 days."
Adjunct Decision dated 20 October 2010:
"The Commission directs Mr. B. S. Ramesh, CAPIO & Assistant PF Commissioner to provide the information on query-9 to the appellant before 15 November 2010.Page 2 of 4
Mr. K. Narayanan, RPFC-II; Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao, APFC (Admin-II); Mrs. Nandni, Assistant Director (IS) and APFC (Compliance) Mr. Mehboob Ganiyar will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 09 December 2010 at 04.00PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). The Commission recommends that they give their explanations by Video Conference from Bangalore. They may inform the Commission if they would like to appear through Video Conferencing."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 December 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. K. Narayanan, RPFC-II; Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao, APFC (Admin-II); Mrs. Nandini, Assistant Director (IS) and Mr. Mehboob Ganiyar, APFC (Compliance);
The Respondents appeared before the Commission and Mr. Mehboob Ganiya, APFC(Compliance) has shown the Commission that the information was provided in less than 30 days time. Mr. K. Narayanan RPFC-II, Mrs. Nandini Assistant, Director (IS) and Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao, APFC (Admin-II) have stated that the information was very voluminous and hence it took them a very long time to provide the information. They state that the information has been provided to the Complainant on 08/08/2010. The RTI Application had been made on 12/10/2009 and the information should have been provided before 12/11/2009. Instead the information has been provided only on 08/08/2010 after a delay of nearly 10 months. After discussions with all the three Respondents the Commission comes to the conclusion that it is difficult to pinpoint responsibility on any one of them for this delay.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be."
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 4The RTI application was made on 12/10/2009 and the information was supplied only on 08/08/2010. Since the delay has been far over 100 days the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI jointly on Mr. K. Narayanan RPFC-II, Mrs. Nandini Assistant Director (IS) and Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao APFC (Admin-II). Since the Commission is unable to pinpoint responsibility on any one officer the Commission is imposing the penalty of `8334/- to be paid by each of them.
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. K. Narayanan RPFC-II, Mrs. Nandini Assistant Director (IS) and Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao APFC (Admin-II). Since the delay in providing the information is over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing jointly three respondents Mr. K. Narayanan RPFC-II, Mrs. Nandini Assistant Director (IS) and Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao APFC (Admin-II) of `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO is directed to recover the amount of `8334/- each from the salaries of Mr. K. Narayanan RPFC-II, Mrs. Nandini Assistant Director (IS) and Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao APFC (Admin-II)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 `4167/- per month every month from the salaries of Mr. K. Narayanan RPFC-II, Mrs. Nandini Assistant Director (IS) and Mr. Laxmi Pati Rao APFC (Admin-II) and remitted by the 10th January 2011 and 10th of February 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of February, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 09 December 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(JA) CC:
1- Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
EPFO
Ministry of Labour and Employment
14, Bhikaji Kama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
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