Central Information Commission
Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha vs Border Security Force on 17 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000723 dated 17-7-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha,
Respondent: Border Security Force (BSF) Academy, Tekanpur
Heard & Decision announced 16.08.010
FACTS
By an application of 21.3.2009 Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha of Tekanpur, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh applied to the CPIO, Office of Director, BSF Academy, Tekanpur, Gwalior seeking the following information:
1. certified copy of note-sheet on the basis of which, a decision was taken, to mention the name and alleged action of only medical officers, in the letter No. 683 dated 04 March 2002, and not to mention about Shri S.S. Dhillon, Assistant Commandant, STC, Tekanpur, in spite of being named in police report dated 3rd March 2002, as well as being named in COI.
2. Certified copy of note-sheet, on the basis of which, a decision was taken to pass the order, No th BSF/VIG/3220/dated 6 March 2002, in respect of only medical officers and not to pass in respect of alleged general duty officer (Shri S.S. Dhillon) and other general duty officers (Board members of recruitment board) at any point of time, whose prime duty was to check the entry of alleged fake candidates.
To this appellant Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha received no response leading him to an appeal on 22.4.2009 with the following prayer:-
"Since public Information officer did not give any response to the application submitted on 21.03.2009 under the RTI Act 2005, therefore prayed you may be pleased to take necessary action to secure compliance with the provision of this Act and provide me require information."
Subsequently Dr. Jha received a letter of 28.4.2009 from Commandant/ADJT, BSF Academy Shri S. P. Tiwari in response to his first appeal informing him as follows:-
"I am directed to inform that your case stands referred to FHQ, BSF, New Delhi for necessary action. Outcome will be communicated on its receipt."1
Dr. Jha has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:-
1. Provide me the information requested from public information officer vide my application date 21.03.2009
2. Pass such further order(s) as this commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter.
In his grounds for appeal Dr. Jha has submitted as follows:-
"Public Information Officer (Dy. Director BSF Academy) did not give any response to my application dated 21.03.2009, within the specified time period, there after I, preferred first appeal under the Act to first appellate authority (Director BSF Academy) on 22.04.2009. First Appellate authority did not pass any speaking order within specified time period under this Act but vide letter No. 1129/110/-Rectt/RTI/HQ/09/2383-87 dated 28 April 2009 informed me that,' case has been referred to Force Head Quarter New Delhi for necessary action and outcome will be intimated on its receipt.' Since this reply is neither satisfactory to me nor it is proper as per provision of this Act. Being aggrieved of the reply this second appeal is being preferred."
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 17-8-2010. The following are present.
Appellant at CIC offices, New Delhi Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha Respondents at NIC Studio Gwalior Shri K. J. Keswani, Dy. Director, BSF Shri D. R. Choudhury, Dy. Comdt.
Shri K. J. Keswani, DIG, BSF, and Dy. Director, Tekanpur Academy submitted that this was a case of corruption in which a court enquiry was appointed by BSF, which dispatched a body from Delhi to search such houses and offices of the suspects, from which recovery was made including from appellant Dr. Jha who was subsequently suspended and dismissed. In this context he pleaded that the process was complex with a court of enquiry, BSF Headquarters and CBI involved, hence the delay in response although an interim response was sent to appellant on 28.04.2009.
Appellant Dr. Jha submitted that this is indeed a case pertaining to corruption on which police investigation was initiated. However, the BSF then 2 took over the enquiry leading to him suspect that there was a cover up. Dy. Director Shri Keswani submitted that the report of the Court of Inquiry has been received and a copy provided to appellant Dr. Jha. Dr. Jha admitted to having received this report enquiry but pointed out that in that court of enquiry the reason is not given why the name of Shri S. S. Dhillon, who was originally charged with corruption as per the COI report, was dropped. He, therefore, wanted to see the notes that are the subject of the present appeal.
Upon this, Shri Keswani submitted that he has examined the noting on file and none of it has any reference to either why Shri S. S. Dhillon was dropped or on the decision taken to pass orders only in respect of Medical Officers. Since the request of appellant Dr. Jha was specific to these two items, CPIO had no information to give.
DECISION NOTICE In the present case a final response of BSF has only gone on 31.7.2009 refusing the information sought under section 24 (1). The issue before us, therefore, is whether the Proviso to section 24 (1) on a question pertaining to allegations of corruption will apply in this case. The Court of enquiry report sought by appellant Dr. Jha was a subject of a separate application of 8.1.2009 addressed to IG, Medical. In the present case it is not a copy of the court of inquiry report that has been sought, but the reason for coming to certain conclusions in the enquiry as has been indicated above. There is in the file noting no mention of either issue on which appellant Dr. Jha has sought information and, therefore, CPIO had no information to offer. However, although this information has now been provided it could have been provided in the very first instance. Since the application of Dr Jha clearly pertains to allegations of corruption which were enquired into and which another Branch of the same public authority i.e. the BSF has supplied, the information sought merited disclosure under Proviso to Sec 24(1). But because the information sought now stands provided there is no further cause of action on this account.
On the other hand let alone providing information we find that in this case there has been negligence also in responding to the request for 3 information within the time limit mandated under section 7 (1). Shri Keswani, present in the hearing, was CPIO at time the application was received in BSF Academy. He submitted that this was simply passed on for further action and an interim reply had indeed been given to appellant Dr. Jha on 28.4.2009. On this, however, he admitted that there was indeed a delay, which he could not explain, of seven days in providing the initial response. For this reason and on the basis of the fact that the CPIO Shri Keswani has been given an opportunity to be heard in the matter, this Commission has come to the conclusion that there is a delay of seven days in responding to the RTI application which is in violation of section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, with the response falling due on 21.4.2009 but supplied only on 28.4.2009. CPIO Shri Keswani has rendered himself liable for a penalty of Rs.1750/- @ of Rs. 250/- per day. Director, Border Security Force Academy, Tekanpur, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh is directed to recover this amount from CPIO Shri Keswani DIG either through direct payment or recovery from his salary by 5th September 2010 in the name of Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1, Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-110011 under intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar, Deputy Secretary and Joint Registrar of this Commission.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17-8-2010 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 17-8-2010 4 5