Central Information Commission
Mani Ram Prajapati vs Military Engineer Services on 30 December, 2023
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MESER/A/2022/146167
Mani Ram Prajapati .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Commander Works
Engineer Military Engineer
Services Jhansi Cantt- 284001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21-12-2023
Date of Decision : 21-12-2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28-03-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 17-06-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22-09-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"I have served in SDO (MES) Nowgong under GE Jhansi wef 30 Apr 2007 to 30 Jun 2009 as JE E/M. During the stay there in the financial year 2008-09, assessment year 2009-10, income tax for Rs 11074/-has been 1 recovered from my pay for the month of Feb 2009 vide SDO (MES) Nowgong (GE Jhansi) voucher No 43/01/265//E1C dated 11 Feb 2009, DV No 9129. The recovered amount has also been reflected in Form16. But the above amount has not been uploaded/ reflected in the Form 26 AS (Annual tax statement under section 203AA of the income tax Act 1961).
In view of the above, please intimate the reasons for non-uploading of income tax amount Rs. 11074/- recovered in the month of Feb 2009 against SDO (MES) Nowgong (GE Jhansi) voucher No. 43/01/265/E1C dated 11 Feb 2009, DV No. 9129 of Feb/2009. Please also intimate the date by which the amount will be uploaded to income tax department. Income tax office is showing above amount outstanding against me."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.06.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Col. Akhil Singh, CWE CPIO and Shri Shivam Prajapati, Accounts Department present through Video-Conference.
The Appellant submitted that till date no information was provided to him by the Respondent on his RTI application. He stated that despite having sought an information from the Respondent, which every DDO is obliged to provide upfront without having to seek the same, he has to run from pillar to post for obtaining the information. The Appellant, during the hearing, confirmed that he approached CDA at Lucknow also who replied to him to go back to the DDO. The Appellant's case is being shunted from one place to another and he is being made to run from one office to another for none of his fault. On perusal 2 of the records, it reveals that the Appellant had sought copy of Form 26AS under Income Tax Act when DDO had already deducted the income tax and issued Form 16. Issuance of Form 26AS is obligatory.
On query from the Commission, the Respondent was unable to explain that whether any reply was given to the Appellant on his RTI application dated 28.03.2022. The Respondent, during the hearing, has only referring to a letter dated 19.12.2023 wherein they have asked the CDA to intervene in the matter.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that despite Appellant's fervently pursuing the matter no information was provided to him by the Respondent as per his RTI application. No plausible explanation was offered by the Respondent for not furnishing the information to the Appellant.
The Commission observes that the Appellant has specifically asked for the information related to non-uploading of Form 26 AS but the Respondent instead of facilitating the support to their own employees has chosen not to reply him under the RTI Act and instead referred him to some other unrelated authority.
This is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and it seems that the Respondent public authority has adopted lackadaisical approach in dealing with the RTI applications of the applicants. This whole of the observations shows that the CPIO has willfully obstructed the information to the Appellant under the RTI Act with mala fide intention.
In view of the above observations, the Respondent is directed to provide complete and correct information to the Appellant as per his RTI application within three days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission. If the information sought is not held by them, the same can be obtained by invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and be provided to the Appellant without further loss of time as stipulated above.3
The Respondent is further directed to show-cause in writing that as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date: 21.12.2023 Shri Mani Ram Prajapati 558, Pink City Mohaan Road, Lucknow - 226017.4