Central Information Commission
Mr.Dineshkaushik vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/902033/9237Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/902033
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kaushik
A-56 Anoop Nagar,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059
Respondent : Mr. Unmesh Pahade,
Deemed PIO & the then AERO-32 Govt. of NCT of Delhi O/o the SDM (Election South West) Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi- 110037 RTI application filed on : 24/04/2010 PIO replied : 14/05/2010 First appeal filed on : 07/06/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 28/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 16/07/2010 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Please provide following details for each officer and employee As per Chapter II 8(j) of RTI separately employed in the office of AERO AC-32 Act, 2005 and its rules the a. Salary question of appellant is b. Dearness Allowance irrelevant and therefore the c. Sumptuary Allowance information sought by the d. Leave Encashment e. Medical Reimbursement f. Reimbursed telephone Bills g. TA/DA h. Other traveling allowance if any i. HRA availed j. Conveyance allowance.
2. Details of BLOs employed by AERO AC-32 from 01 January to 31 Same as above.
March 2010.
3. Details of allowance and other expenses paid to BLOs from 01 January No information concerning 2009 to 31 March 2010. Please provide details for each BLO this issue is available with this separately. Dept.
4. For how many days each BLO has worked for AERO AC-32 from Legal notices have been sent during year 2009-10? Please provide details of each BLO separately. to the owners of the illegal connection being used for commercial purposes.
5. Please provide copy of attendance register of AERO AC-32 for the There is no available month of Jan, Feb, March and April 2010. information regarding the Page 1 of 4 illegal meters being installed in the presence of the meter reader.
6. Details of temporary workers/employees hired by AERO AC-32 during The Dept. does not have any year 2009-10 as per following details a) Name of employee information concerning this
b) Date of hire issue.
c) Scale of pay
d) Date if leaving
e) Date of last payment.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed AERO AC-32 to provide complete correct information with respect to all questions of the appellant within 4days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing dated 06/09/2010 :
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, GR-II Dass on behalf of Mr. R. K. Lalwat, Public Information Officer & & SDM (Election South West);
"The respondent states that the information was provided to the appellant on 04/09/2010. Inspite of the order of the FAA no information has been provided to the appellant earlier. On 29/07/2010 a letter was sent to the appellant which is complete defiance of the order of the FAA provided no information. The PIO states that the information has been sought from Mr. V. K. Chauhan on 30/04/2010 who gave the initial reply refusing to give the information. After the order of the FAA on 28/06/2010 to give the information in four working days Mr. Unmesh Pahare, Superintendent (AERO-32) gave the refusal to give the information."
Decision dated 06/09/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The information appears to have been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. Unmesh Pahare, Superintendent (AERO-32)within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the deemed PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Unmesh Pahare, Superintendent (AERO-32) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 20 October 2010 at 12.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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 him."Page 2 of 4
Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing on 20/10/2010:
Respondent: Mr. Unmesh Pahade, Deemed PIO & the then AERO-32 presently AERO-05, Badli Industrial Area, Badli, New Delhi and Mr. Guru Prasad, Gr. II DASS/HC;
The deemed PIO & AERO-32 Mr. Unmesh Pahade has stated that the FAA's order dated 28/06/2010 was received in his office on 26/07/2010. In spite of clear directions of the FAA to provide complete and correct information within 4 days to the Appellant, Mr. Pahade had refused to provide the information vide letter dated 29/07/2010 to the Appellant stating that the information sought covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The complete information has been provided to the Appellant on 04/09/2010.
Since the deemed PIO Mr. Unmesh Pahade had received the FAA's order dated 28/06/2010 on 26/07/2010, the information should have been provided to the Appellant on or before 30/07/2010. However, the information has been provided on 04/09/2010. The deemed PIO Mr. Unmesh Pahade had received an order from the FAA to give the information yet he refused to give the information. This is an act of insubordination of the order of the FAA. The deemed PIO Mr. Unmesh Pahade refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. This was not at all applicable and yet Mr. Unmesh seemed to be determined to refuse giving the information. Mr. Unmesh Pahade has offered no reasonable cause for refusing to give the information.
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.
In this matter the deemed PIO Mr. Umnesh Pahade has refused to give the information even after the order of the First Appellate Authority. In view of this the Commission imposes a penalty on Mr. Unmesh Pahade at the rate of `250/- per day of delay as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The information should have been provided to the Page 3 of 4 appellant before 30/07/2010 instead of which the information was provided to the appellant on 04/09/2010 i.e. after the delay of 35 days. Thus the Commission imposes the penlalty on Mr. Unmesh Pahade, Deemed PIO & AERO- 32 of `250/- X 35 days = `8750/-.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this as a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Unmesh Pahade, Deemed PIO & AERO-32. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 35 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Unmesh Pahade `8750/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `8750/-. from the salary of Mr. Unmesh Pahade 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 `4375/ each month from the salary of Mr. Unmesh Pahade and remitted by the 10th of November 2010 and 10th of December 2010. The total amount of `8750/- will be remitted by 10th of December, 2010.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20 October 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (VN) 1- The Chief Secretary GNCT of Delhi New Delhi 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