Central Information Commission
T Subbamma vs Department Of Posts on 10 October, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421
T Subbammav. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 11.11.2016, CPIO replied on 09.12.2016, FAO on 31.01.2017, Second
appeal filed on 31.03.2017, Hearing on 21.05.2018;
Proceedings on 29.09.2017: Appellant present with Mr. Sudhakar. Public authority represented
by Mr. Krishna Madhav, SSP, CPIO. Directions and show cause issued.
Proceedings on 21.05.2018: Appellant present from NIC Nellore, Public Authority absent;
Date of Decision - 09.10.2018:Directions issued, penalty imposed and compensation awarded.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. A poor and uneducated widow Mrs. T. Subbamma asked the Superintendent of Post Office, Kurnool, "how a dead person came three years after death to post office and realized five KVPs worth Rs. 50/- Thousand with interest Sir"? This question exposed a fraud that occurred in the post office and the misleading replies to her RTI requests. The CPIO and Superintendent of Post Office Mr. Krishna Madhav was confused and could not answer the old widow. He was flipping through the papers, and looking to his lady assistants and dealing clerks for help. Appellant Mrs. Subbamma has brought her son Mr. Sudhakar who passed MBA to help her in representing the case. He has chronologically presented the case narrating the problem and the information sought, while the Superintendent was giving typical bureaucratic answers without addressing the real issue.
2. Mrs. T Subbamma, the appellant claimed that her husband Adisheshaiah has taken five NSCs for Rs 10,000 each. When she claimed the money after her husband's death in 2004, there was no response. When she repeatedly approached she was told that investor came and encashed the national savings certificate. Then she filed an RTI application seeking information on 10 points on documents relating discharging certificates numbers 9CD563112, 9CD563115, 9CD563116 and copy of Memo no L/DA/NB dated 28.12.2010, detailed CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 1 examination plus cross examination with questions & answers of all the witnesses in the inquiry, etc.
3. The CPIO provided information in respect of point nos. 3 & 8 and stated that on other points information sought was exempted under RTI Act, 2005. First Appellant Authority upheld the decision of CPIO. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission.
4. The denial is illegal, which appears to be a cover up of alleged involvement of some officers in defrauding the appellant-widow Smt. Subbamma to deprive her of more than Rs. 50,000/- deposited by her husband in the form of KVPs (it was mentioned as NSC in previous order, mistake regretted). The CPIO says every piece of paper regarding inquiry cannot be given under RTI Act, as they are exempted as private information under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
5. The Commission orderedon 29.09.2017:
6. The appellant alleged, earlier Superintendent of Post Office Kurnool Sri N. Bujjaiah (N Bujji) created a set of false documents and helped some cheats to claim entire amount under five KVP certificates. When appellant sought to know who received the money under five KVPcertificates, the Superintendent said the investor Mr.Adisheshaiah himself personally came and received money. Appellant asked: "when", Superintendent said: "On 27.6.2007 Mr. Adisheshaiah received money under 3 KVP certificates, and on 29.6.2007 he received for remaining two KVPs". SmtSubbamma: My husband died on 10.5.2004, after that I am getting widow pension from the Government, regularly. How can my husband come to your office in 2007 and take money, explain me Sir". Her son Mr. Sudhakar has shown the death certificate of his father through video camera from Kurnool.
Then he said that the post office staff played a fraud with help of one of their relative Ramalingaiah. When her mother asked under RTI for letters ordering inquiry into this fraud, copy of inquiry report, the statement of witnesses, their signature copies for verification etc, they refused saying it was exempted as private information.
7. Present CPIO and Superintendent submitted to the Commission that original investor Adisheshaiah received the invested amount, the complaint with allegations that fraud was not proved in the inquiry conducted by P. Veera Raghavulu, Additional Superintendent of Post Office, wherein it was established that investor Adisheshaiah has taken the money in 2007 and that he gave a copy of inquiry report to his wife. It is in this context appellant asked; "how can a person died in 2004 come to post office in 2007"?
8. Mr. Sudhakar, son of appellant pointed out that earlier Superintendent A Venkateswarlu was honest, and thus he gave a report about fraud committed by his predecessor Superintendent Sri N. Bujjaiah. He alleged that the present Superintendent and CPIO is suppressing that copy of report by Mr. Venkeswarlu, statements of witnesses, their signature copies and questions and answers recorded by another inquiry. Mr.Sudhakar said one NSC bond was realized on 27.6.2007 Wednesday, 2 KVPs on 29th June, 2007 Friday, 1 KVP on 30th June, 2007 Saturday, and last 1 KVP on 2.7.2007 Monday. Sri N. Bujjaiah, the then Superintendent gave cash instead of cheque. Subbamma said on that day Bujjihas celebrated a party with fraudulent people China Venkayya, Ramalingaiah, CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 2 postal staff member Gouse, and a false witness SunkanaVijaya Kumar who shared the booty.
9. The Commission finds denial of information on some points .... is illegal, it was abuse of privacy provision by the present Superintendent of Post Office Kurnool, and it amounts to malicious denial of information. Though right to privacy is fundamental right within the Part III of Indian Constitution, the public servant has no right to plead privacy when complained of fraud and corruption and the CPIO has no authority to indiscriminately abuse privacy clause under Section 8(1)(j). In this context privacy does not mean right to hide corruption and fraudulent misconduct, and the CPIO will be liable to face penalty proceedings under Section 20 for such abuse.
10. The Commission finds merit in the suspicion of the appellant and her son that one Superintendent might have colluded with some cheats while present Superintendent& CPIO Mr. Krishna Madhav is trying to cover up by suppressing the information. The Commission directs the Superintendent of Post Office and CPIO Mr. Krishna Madhav to provide inspection of all files concerning the NSCs of husband of appellant, all inquiry proceedings and provide certified copies of documents selected by him, free of cost, today personally to the appellant and her son and report the compliance to the Commission along with the acknowledgment of receipt. The Commission directsMr. Krishna Madhav CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for reasons above, and why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him. The Post Office Kurnool is directed to explain why they should not be directed to pay compensation to T. Subbamma.
11. All responses shall reach within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. It shall be noted, in absence of response, the penalty and compliance proceedings will continue as if the public authority has nothing to defend.
In public interest and in the interest of good governance and imposing accountability among the post officers, the Commission requires theChief Post Master General of Andhra Pradesh to take cognizance of this second appeal/this order as complaint and initiate appropriate action and also direct Mr. V. Santana Raman, the First Appellate Authority of Andhra Pradesh Circle at Kurnool, to find factual aspects of encashment of NSCs of Audisheshaiah in the context of allegations raised by his wife and son in this second appeal and send the fact finding report along with action initiated by their office into this entire matter by November 1, 2017 to the appellant marking a copy to this Commission. A copy of this order shall be sent to Dr. Y.P. Rai, Chief Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh Postal Circle covering AP and Telangana, Hyderabad for appropriate action. (Enclosed: the copy of RTI Application and the response by CPIO).
Decision:
6. The term NSC in the previous order is replaced as KVP, the Commission regrets this typographical error. The appellant on 15.10.2017 submitted to this Commission as under:
"Refer to discussions happened on 29.09.17, and as suggested by you to my son Mr. T. Sudhakaraiah, who assisted me during discussion, to visit Postal Superintendent officer and to verify the file. You suggested my son to take the documents from related files, whatever required and suggested to superintendent of post office to supply requested copies, if requires entire file on free of cost.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 3 After completion of the video conference as per your suggestion, we visited Postal Superintendent office on 29.09.17. They gave following documents signed and stamped on them.
1. Statement dt. 15.11.07 of Sri A. Venkateswarulu, SPM, Vidavalur SO (5 pages)
2. Lawyer Notice dt. 05.10.07 (2 pages)
3. Death Certificate of ThiruveedulaAdiseshaiah (1 page)
4. Proper Person Certificate (1 page)
5. KVP discharges schedules dt. 27.06.07, 29.06.07, 30.06.07 & 02.07.07 (4 pages)
6. Application No. 955 Dt. 03.02.03 (2 pages) While giving the above documents, Superintendent of post office suggested that take these documents now and they are searching for some other papers and directed us to approach them in or 3 days.
On 05.10.07 & 06.10.07 my son Mr. T. Sudhakaraiah visited Postal Superintendent office and requested superintendent to give a file to read. Superintendent replied that they are searching for copies and questioned what way you are going to benefit by reading the file as it contains their internal communication matter. Further superintendent suggested that you require only discharge KVP certificates, where signatures to be verified which they will try to get it and suggested us to wait for a week time and some decision is going to come. What is the decision is not revealed.
Statement of Mr. A. Venkateswarulu then SPM dated 15.11.2007 taken as state witness (SW01), the content of the statement is as below:
On 06.10.07 they received a lawyer notice. After that when check the application nos. 955 & 956 in guard file, it was missing and later they obtained it.
As per him that in May 2007 Sri China Venkaiah and Sri Vijayakumar came to him and informed that Mr. T. Adiseshaiah was on bed due to paralysis, if you discharge certificates, we hand over money to him. When he was verified the signature with application no. 955 dated 03.02.03 and signature on KVP certificate were not tallied, hence not effected payment. Then enquired with the office staff it confirmed that ThiruveedulaAdiseshaiah expired. Again in May 07, Sri China Venkaiah and Vijayakumar came to post office with another person and shown him as T. Audiseshaiah and obtained signatures on the Bond. These signatures also not tallied hence not discharged KVP bonds. They told registration number 955 certificate is not ThiruveedulaAdiseshaiah and for another T. Audiseshaiah. This was told in front of staff of the post office and staff of the post office revealted that ThiruveedulaAudiseshaiah expired and they don't know who is T. Audiseshaiah.
Departmental inquiry initiated by then Superintendent of Post offices Mr. S. V. Siva Prasad based on the news published in Nellore district Vartha paper dated 13.11.2007 about the fraud happened in Vidavalur post office.
The departmental inquiry against Sri N. Bujjaiah, conducted by Mr. T. Veera Ragavalu (IO), presently working as postal superintendent at Suryapet District CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 4 of Telangana State. I have attended enquiry on 13.09.2011 and gave my witness. During enquiry Mr. N. Bujjaiah orally revealed that one Mr. Chemukula China Venkaiah of Vidavalur signed on behalf of T. Adiseshaiah. This was not recorder in inquiry report and the in inquiry they revealed that ThiruveedulaAdiseshaiah and T. Adisesshaiah is not one and the same. I attached the pension order of AP Govt to RTI 2nd appeal U/s 19(3). They also confirmed in inquiry report that signatures of T. Adiseshaiah having slight difference with respect to application No. 955 of dated 03.02.03.
The inquiry is closed on 15.10.2012 and not informed us about it. We came to know it through earlier RTI application dated 20.09.2016 and reply dated 30.09.2016. "The conclusion of the Inquiry is prosecution has not produced sufficient evidence to hold the article of charge as proved beyond any reasonable doubt and hence I hold the article of charge as not proved which framed against the CO i.e Sri N. Bujjaiah, the then SPM Gandavaram SO now SPM, North Rajupalem SO".
On 09.10.17, after noon at 3.15 PM we have received a phone call from postal Superintend Office. They instructed us to visit their office to collect required copies requested through RTI. My son visited post office around 5.45 PM and told them that he will come on next day i.e. 10.10.17. Due to some personal work he could not visit post office on that day, hence visited on 11.10.17 verified the files and collected required copies with stamp & signature on photo copies.
Inquiry Officer and address: Sri T. Veera Raghavulu, Superintend of post offices, Suryapet - Suryapet Division, 508213, [email protected], [email protected], 08684-220218, Telangana.
Sir, I am here with attaching NSC application No. 955 and KVP bonds Nos 09 CD 563112 & 09 CD 562113. On KVP bond 09CD563112 back side three signatures have signed on behalf of T. Audiseshaiah and 09 CD 563113 two signatures signed on behalf of T. Audiseshaiah. Two Signatures have signed on KVP's 09 CD 563114, 09 CD 563115, 09 CD 563116."
7. The appellant on 13.05.2018 submitted to this Commission as under:
"...I would like to bring to you kind notice of the following facts before and after hearing of earlier video conference with you.
1. After the Video conference, and on receipt of show cause-notice from you, we received a letter from superintendent of post office, requested us to submit a succession certificate from court to settle our claim. We have filed documents through lawyer in Sr. Civil Judge Court, Kovur and court rejected our application for insisting to submit Original KVP Bonds, where as we filed Xerox copies. Original KVP bonds are in AJFMC Court. We need to resubmit the documents after the court vacation by 2nd June, 2018.
2. My husband's 5 noskisanvikaspatras of each of Rs. 10,000.00, were withdrawn with forged signatures and the same was published in Vartha News Paper, Nellore district local edition.
3. In year 2007, after I came to know about the fraudulent discharge of postal bonds of my husband Mr. Late T. Audiseshaiah, on 17.11.2007 I complained to Superintend of Police of Nellore, of Nellore District. SP sir is endorsed my CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 5 complaint and suggested to handover it at Vidavalur Police Station, Vidavalur of Nellore District of Andhrapradesh.
4. I went to Vidavalur Police Station on 22.11.07, SI of Police Station took my complaint and Registered FIR No. 92 dated 22.11.07 and submitted it in Additional Judicial First class Magistrate Court, Kovur. There after I was calling court constable over phone to know the status of the case. They informed me that case is going on and when ever my presence is required they will inform me. Like that they were dragging the case.
5. To know status of the FIR, with help of my son, I requested information through RTI. They sent a charge sheet copy dated 20.01.2009 as case number as CC 308/2013. Whereas in postal enquiry report case not mentioned as CC 26/2009.
6. To know the facts of the case, there is 5 years time period from the date of the FIR and case no. CC 308/13. I applied application and first appeal through RTI to know the reasons for huge delay from the date of FIR and CC no. 308/2013. No response from APIO and FAA and requested information through 2nd appeal U/s 19(3). Commissioner of AP Information Commission sent notice to both parties to appear on 04.04.2017. We and First Appellate authority appeared before the Information Commissioner. Information commissioner suggested FAA to submit date wise investigation report with facts and explain reasons for delay in turn passed an order and directed the PIO to furnish factual information to complainant in 10 days. Before appear the commission FAA send a letter on 03.04.17 stating that delay is caused due to delay in getting required information from postal department and court returned the charge sheet to resubmit it with memo.
7. Regarding the status of Commissioner's order, I wrote a letter to FAA and no reply from them. There after wrote a letter to Information Commissioner, requesting to direct FAA to furnish the information as per their order we have not received any reply from the commissioner also.
8. The case No. CC 308/2013 in AJFMC Court Kovur, is disposed on 08.05.2018 the accused A1 & A2 are acquitted and A3 and A4 were died. A1 and A2 were acquitted based on the witness given by PW3 Mr. N. Bujjaiah. PW7 Mr. T. Veera Raghavulu, Inquiry officer and PW10 Mr. A. Venkateswarulu were also given their witnesses.
9. We lost case because of false evidence given by PW3 Mr. N. Bujjaiah, Police department sent a letter to Superintend of post office and sub post master when postal employee A4 is arrested. 2nd Paragraph of the letter is "Later the accused A1 and A2 hatched a plan with malicious intention to draw the cash of 5 kisanvikaspatra bonds in the presence of Post Master Vidavalur on 27-06-2007 for encashment of the bonds. Accordingly post master Sri N. Bujjaiah and encashed bonds with interest when A3: SunkaraVijayakumar and A4: Sk. GouseBasha were identified A2 as T. Audiseshaih and gave Rs. 52,432/- to A1 and A4 and thus cheated Postal Department.
10. During course of examination of case no. 308/13, Assistant public prosecutor (APP) filed a petition U/s 319 of Cr. PC to add PW3 as accused. Defense lawyer argued that PW7 Mr. T. Veera Raghavulu in his deposition conveyed that "As per the documentary evidence produced before me and oral evidence adduced during the enquiry I have submitted my enquiry report as the article of charge leveled against Sri N. Bujjaiah is not provided". The Hon'ble judge is dismissed the petition filed by APP.
The Advocate for A1 & A2 is also argued for PW3.
11. PW3 gave false evidence. In deposition he does not know A1 & A2. And it is not true to suggest that A2 forged signature of Audiseshaiah who is husband of PW2 in my presence, even though Audiseshaiah was no more by that time. Sir, I request to know from the postal Department that who forged CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 6 the signature of my deceased husband and whom PW3 paid the cash of the bonds pertains to my husband, if some body cheated postal department, and why not postal department filed criminal / cheating case.
12. (From list of Depositions). Sir, please refer question & answers of 06, 07, 11 and 12 of cross examination by CO in Deposition of Sri AndagundaVenkateswarlu. It reveals that 1st time Sri Chinavenkaiah and Sri Vijaykumar visited and 2nd time along with them 3rd person visited and told his name T.Audiseshaiah and signed for T.Audiseshaiah. Both the occasions signatures not tallied, amount is not paid.
13. Deposition of Sri PachimilliVenkataRamana, revealed that Sri Chimukula China Venkaiah approached me and asked discharge of KVP's in respect of KVP's application number 955.
14. Deposition of Sri P. Siva Prasad (PW4); revealed that Sri T. Audiseshaiah was expired (Q. No. 5).
15. Deposition of Sri K. Srinivasulu, Inspector of Posts: Sir, please refer question & answers of 09, 12, 14 and 22 of cross examination by CO. It reveals that CO didn't take him to obtain statements and only finding fault.
16. Deposition of Sri L.V. Murali Kumar, Inspector of Posts: Sir, please refer question & answers of 01 cross examination by CO. The witness signed as T. Vijayakumar where as his surname is "Sunkara".
17. Deposition of Smt. ThiruveedulaSubbamma: Sir, please refer question & answers of 19 of cross examination by CO. It shows CO knows to whom he paid the money pertains to bonds of my husband Mr. T. Audiseshaiah. During my interaction CO confirmed to IO that Sri Chemukula China Venkaiah forged my husband's signature. It was not recorded by IO. We came to know it after we obtained documents after the video conference.
18. Questioning of CO (Sri N. Bujjaiah): Sir, please refer question & answers 07, 11 and 13.
19. Presenting Officers (PO) brief: Sir, please refer conclusion of Presenting Officers brief of page Nos. 16 & 17.
20. Inquiry Report: Sir kindly refer Page No. 18 & 19 of the inquiry report says that SW07 has not obtained version of SAS agent T. Gopal regarding full name of the investor.
CO also deposed that he paid the KVPs discharge amount Sri T.Audiseshaiah duly witnessed by T. Vijayakumar, it shows that the discharge value of KVPs paid to some Audiseshaiah, but the investigating officer did not find the person who received the value of KVP during his investigation and did not obtain the statement of who witnessed the payment of KVPs discharge value and same admitted by investigating officer.
Prosecution has not produced any evidence as the investment made by Sri ThiruveedulaAudiseshaiah and Sri T. Audiseshaiah and ThiruveedulaAudiseshaiah are one and the same. In view of above oral evidence adduced during the inquiry and the documentary evidence produced before me, I could not hold the article of charge as proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21. We strongly believe that the Inquiry was conducted in favor of the CO and to suppress the truth. The distance from office of the superintendent of post offices and VIdavalur Post office is around 20 Km. It is a matter of 2 hours to obtain the version of SAS agent with regard to find full name of the investor. I have attended enquiry, during that they have not asked about this question that T. Audishaiah and ThiruveedulaAudiseshaiah is same or not. The Inquiry started 17.02.2011 and closed on 15.10.2012. Duration was 21 CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 7 months. CO is questioning investigating officer SW07 has not obtained the statements from the persons who received cash of KVP Bonds and person who witnessed it. CO should take SW07 to the persons to whom he paid money, without it how SW07 will obtain statement. SW07 also not said this. This indicates that all of them knows the truth and were trying to suppress the truth.
All the postal employees in Vidavlur sub post office were very well aware that fraud took place and whom money was paid. By referring signatures on the KVP bond 09 CD 563112, three signatures are appearing by name T. Audisehaiah. No signature is nowhere nearer and not comparable with respect to the investor signature on purchase application no. 955 dt. 03.02.03. In other four KVP Bonds two signatures are appearing by name T. Audisehaiah. We would like to know from the postal department how many signatures of investor are permitted to with draw the amount.
Sir, after we had video conference with you at NIC center Nellore collector's office, Inspector of Posts Nellore west sub division went to Vidavalur and obtained a statement dt. 14.11.17 from T. Gopal of NSC agent, confirmed that initial "T" of T. Audiseshaih is Thiruveedula. I am also enclosing the KVP bonds (5 nos) 09 CD 563112 to 09 CD 563116, and kindly verify the signatures with respect to investor signature on application 955 dt. 03.02.03.
We have been concluding that Mr. T. Veera Raghavulu IO favored CO Mr. N. Bujjaiah in rule 14 departmental enquiry and Mr. Bujjaiah saved the accused by giving false evidence in the AJFMC court, Kovur.
Sir, I request you kindly do justice with regard to my case where in justice done to me to find out the persons who forged my deceased husband's signature and to whom postal department paid the amount of KVP's of my husband."
8. The appellant submitted that after the order dated 29.09.2017, the respondent authority contacted the appellant and provided few documents concerning to succession certificate. He further submitted that the authorities of Vidavalur police station filed a complaint in the year 2007 on the issue pertaining to forgery by public servants and even FIR was filed to that effect. He expressed his grief that till 2013 the same was not submitted in the Court resulting in which charge-sheet was also not issued. It is relevant to mention herein that the Court case was dismissed for want of evidence. The appellant had purchased 5 bonds valuing Rs. 15,000/- each in the year 2003 and the maturity date was 8.5 years from the date of its purchase. He submitted that since 2007 he has lost nearly Rs. 1,27,000/- (both principal and interest amount), he is entitled to compensation. He also demanded stern action against the corrupt officers who misappropriated the money and those who were trying to shield the culprits.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 8
9. The response of CPIO and Superintendent of Post Office, dated 9.12.2016 says:
The information sought for vide your application under RTI Act, 2005 referred above in respect of particulars of information of documents is furnished hereunder:
Point No.1,2,4,5,6,7,9&10 :The information in respect of documents relating to investigation of complaint of corruption against officers of the department and documents relating to disciplinary cases is exempted from the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No.3 & 8: Xerox copies of application for purchase of savings certificates with Regn. No.955 and 956 are annexed herewith.
10. The above answer is apparently illegal and incomplete. It also reflects negligence and irresponsibility of the concerned CPIO & Superintendent of Post Office, who did not even cared to give his name within brackets below his signature, though it is mandatory requirement, as per office practices and DoPT orders. In spite of repeated directions the PIOs and other officers of postal department are not writing their names below their signatures. The Commission has to spend a lot of time and put so many questions just to know who was the CPIO then and now. Mr Krishna Madhav, who is CPIO as on date of hearing this second appeal, was hesitating to provide the name of the CPIO who received this RTI application and responded.
11. The CPIO & SPO chose not to mention the clause of exemption he was trying to invoke and not attempted to justify the same. Later, in response to the Commission's show cause notice, Mr. P Vishwanadham, SPO and the CPIO explained the caseon 12.10.2017 and submitted that the orders of the CIC were complied with. He stated that he has handed over the documents as directed, to the appellant and obtained the acknowledgement. Regarding his earlier denial Mr. P Vishwanadhamclaimed that he followed the guidelines of the Postal Directorate New Delhi and denied the information about complaint and statements of Mr. N Bujjaiah, a charge sheeted employee who is facing enquiry under Rule 14. This response has answered the question that Mr.P.Vishwanadham is the SPO and CPIO who responded on 30.9.2016 to the RTI request of appellant dated 20.09.2016. But except on point numbers 3 & 8 the CPIO has denied information on all points from 1 to 10. He has produced a letter dated 17.10.2005, from Smt. KalpanaTewari, Dy. Director General (PG and QA) of Government of India, Ministry of Communications and IT Department of Posts, DakBhawan, New Delhi 110001, along with "guidelines on RTI"
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 9 regarding exempted information and proactive disclosure of information. The
letter also cautions that 'we should not fail in successful implementation of the RTI Act...". In this "Guidelines" one paragraph under vigilance sub-heading says:
Documents relating to investigation of complaint of corruption against officers of the Department and documents relating to disciplinary cases are 'secret/confidential in nature.
Other information based on guidelines of the CVC the disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation etc. would not be disclosed.
12. The rule in 'Guidelines' under "vigilance" is in conflict with section 8(1)(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 while the second paragraph is in tune with the exemption clause. The complaints of fraud like that happened in this case can never be considered as 'confidential' or 'secret' as mentioned in first rule under 'vigilance', referred above. Even if these guidelines were authentically issued by the appropriate authority, it will not have force of law because Section 22 overrides any such conflicting law or regulation or rules or guidelines etc. Section 22 says:
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
13. Thus the Guidelines to the extent they are in conflict with the provisions of RTI Act, will have no effect. The Commission holds that the above rule of Guidelines "Documents relating to investigation of complaint of corruption against officers of the Department and documents relating to disciplinary cases are 'secret/confidential in nature", is hit by Section 22 and thus not valid ab initio. The CPIO, being a designated authority under RTI Act, is expected to act as per RTI Act, and he has a duty to point out to the appropriate head of the concerned wing of his public authority about this contradiction, or should have implemented the RTI Act, 2005. How can he consider a set of 'guidelines' which are openly conflicting with RTI Act as superior to legislation passed by Supreme Legislative body of the nation -the Parliament of India, and unjustifiably denied the information to the appellant?
14. The public authority has another duty to perform under Section 8(2) of RTI Act. Section 8(2) of the Act says:
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 10 Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
15. The Post Office is like a trust/service provider and supposed to serve the best interests of the customer/consumer, such as the appellant in this case. Instead, one responsible officer in Post Office takes away the money deposited in KVPs, plays fraud on consumer's family and the post office, brings disrepute to the department which gave him employment and trustee like responsibility, while others try to protect the wrongful officer by all illegal methods. When the victim of this fraud approaches through representation, she did not get justice. Then she files an RTI request hoping resolution of the issue, but again faces the disappointment as information was denied by the CPIO. The CPIO should have seen the public interest, breach of consumer's rights, reputation of the employing public authority and problem of the applicant, whose trust was breached by the officers of the department. The CPIO did not apply his mind and simply ignored Section 8(2). Hence the denial of information to the applicant/appellant is illegal. The CPIO failed to discharge his burden under Section 19(5) of RTI Act, which says:
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.
16. The CPIO Mr Vishwanadham's claim that he had no wrongful intention to deny the RTI as he relied on the guidelines could be correct. He might have no malice. But he is expected to read the RTI Act and understood simple meaning of Section 22 and Section 8(2). A CPIO pleading ignorance of these sections is not reasonable. Knowing fully well that law imposed an obligation to provide such information, Mr. P Vishwanadham has denied the information. He has ultimately accepted his wrongful denial, expressed regrets and requested for exonerating him.
17. As on the date of hearing, i.e., 29.9.2017, Mr Krishna Madhav, was present during the hearing and directions were issued to him on the same day. He is also responsible for denial because he did nothing to provide information, till 29.9.2017, to the appellant or to redress the grievance or to intimate the time in which her due amounts would be paid. However, the Commission finds Mr P Vishwanadham as the appropriate authority as on the date of receipt of RTI CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 11 request and his response was illegal and against RTI Act. Appellant was denied the information by both the CPIOs. It is a case of neglect or deliberate misuse of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. First of all a complaint of fraud against the public servant cannot be considered as private information, that can be denied under Section 8(1)(j). Assuming it was 'personal' the CPIO should have seen clearly visible larger interest. The CPIOs did not care, it is bad reflection of failure of governance and corruption, cover up and denial of right to information.
18. The order was given in both the languages- in Telugu, to enable appellant Smt. Subbamma to understand and English, but Mr Krishna Madhav, did not choose to attend hearing on subsequent day nor submitted any explanation in writing till today. The Commission records admonition against the present CPIO Mr. Krishna Madhav and warns him not to deny such information in future. There is no compliance on the direction given for conducting an enquiry.
19. The Commission finds that Mr. P Vishwanadham deliberately deniedthe information without any reasonable cause.The Commission holds Mr. P. Vishwanadham, CPIO liable under section 20 of RTI Act for wrongful denial besides not complying with the orders of Commission and for continuous harassment of appellant. Hence, the Commission deems it a fit case for imposition of maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon Mr. P. Vishwanadham. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be deducted by the Public Authority from the salary of the Mr. P. Vishwanadham, CPIO by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO CAT", New Delhi in 5 equal monthly instalments and forward the demand drafts addressed to Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 10.12.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 10.04.2019.
20. The Commission finds that till today, the public authority has not given complete information about the grievance of the appellant. She is still waiting for the intimation about realization of KVP deposits of her late husband. Neither Mr. Krishna Madhav nor any other officer told the Commission about the possibility of the time taken for payment of deposits which were matured long back.
21. The appellant alleged that public authority is unreasonably with holding the payment of matured KVP deposits made by her husband, on the excuse of investigation into fraud. She and her son questioned why their money should be CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 12 held up when they are not responsible for any fraud. She said: When officers working in post office themselves committed fraud, why should I be denied of my money? The Commission finds the questions of the appellant are quiet legal, reasonable and there is an obligation on the Post Office as service provider to rectify its defects in service, to discharge the liability of paying the deposited amount along with the interest till the due date, and with penal interest from the date of due till the date of payment. The delay, denial, and giving incomplete information, inaction on her complaint, non-payment of due money amount to serious harassment of the applicant's family who are also victims of the fraud perpetuated by the staff members of the Post Office. The Public Authority did not make any submission on notice for compensation. The Commission assumes that the public authority has no reason to deny the compensation, and they have nothing to say anything on that point.
22. Section 19(8) says: In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to-
b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
23. The appellant/widow of the depositing customer was harassed by the successive Post Masters and their staff. The Post Office was negligent, while some of its officers were criminally liable for fraud, its CPIO did not care to respect the RTI of the applicant. Neither she nor her son, were informed about possible status of the payment of money deposited by husband of appellant. She is struggling for the last three years to secure justice and money, but officers were exhibiting no sense of responsibility. The Post Office and its representatives are liable for breach of contract, negligent behaviour, denial of rights of consumer and also denial of RTI of the applicant. She suffered loss because of criminal misconduct of officers of public authority by unjust denial and unjust enrichment of some fraudulent persons at the cost of appellant. She suffered loss because of denial of information and also suffered deprivation because of such conduct. Considering the harassment the appellants subjected to, the Commission directs the public authority to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss and treatment. This will not deprive her right to proceed against the public authority for damages under Consumer Protection Act or under any other principle of tortuous liability before appropriate authority. The Post Office shall CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 13 pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
24. The Commission directed the CPIO and First Appellate Authority to submit the report of inquiry into this sordid affair of suffering, harassment, caused by denial of information and deprivation of money, along with the names of officers responsible.No such report is submitted. The Commission directs public authority to furnish the report to appellant marking a copy to this Commission, within one month.
25. The Commission requires the public authority, under Section 19(8)(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, specifically replacing the guidelines referred above with fresh guidelines, in tune with the exceptions under Section 8 and 9 and not to have any rules in contradiction or conflict with the transparency obligations of RTI Act within one month. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/123421 Page 14