Central Information Commission
Satyendra Singh vs Indian Agricultural Research ... on 28 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/INARI/A/2022/113963
Satyendra Singh ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, ICAR, RTI Cell,
Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/04/2023
Date of Decision : 20/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 30/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 31/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/03/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"Subject Refund of Excess amount Rs. 73821.00 recovered from Dr Satyendra Singh, Principal Scientist. ICAR-NCIPM, New Delhi-110012 against HBA and interest- reg.1
In reference to letter issued from F and AO (Audit -3) vide F No. Audit -3 MBA 333 dated 21.09.2021 an excess amount of Rs. 73812.00 has been recovered from my salary (copy attached as supporting document).
In this context I am filing RTI, under RTI Act to seek the information on the following.
1 the action taken by the concerned section of ICAR-IARI, New Delhi-12 to refund this amount of Rs. 73812 00 Provide chronologically details since 21.09 2020 to till date and action taken in this regard.
2 Name of the Office, Officer/Officials responsible for this delay with reasons.
3 Since this huge amount of mine is pending since 21.09.2020 with ICAR-IARI, New Delhi-12 why should not I claim the interest on this amount Rs. 73812.00."
The CPIO transferred the RTI application to the other concerned CPIO on 30.12.2021.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.01.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Anil kumar Siddharth, F & AO cum CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply by inviting attention of the bench towards his latest written submission dated 17.04.2023, wherein he stated as under (reproduced in verbatim)-
"....An amount of Rs. 400,000/- was disbursed to me by ICAR-IARI, New Delhi against House Building Advance in 2003. This Principal amount was recovered in monthly instalments followed by interest from my salary up to 2 30.11.2016. During this period I served several ICAR institutes i.e. ICAR-IARI. New Delhi, ICAR-IIVR. Varanasi, UP, ICAR-RS-IIVR, Kushinagar, UP ICAR-NCIPM, New Delhi. I requested my host institute (ICAR-NCIPM, New Delhi) to calculate the interest but in the absence of HBA-related documents, it was forwarded to IARI, New Delhi. In absence of any reply from IARI. the instalments were deduced regularly and remittance for the same was deposited to IARI. New Delhi by my parent institutes i.e. ICAR-IIVR. Varanasi (UP) and ICAR-NCIPM. New Delhi and completed all the formalities as per rule. In pain, I outsourced an accountant and prepare a statement of details of HBA disbursement and refund of Principal amount + interest to IARI, New Delhi. ICAR-IARI, Directorate Audit-III, issued me No Due Certificate vide F.No. Audit-III/HBA/333 dated 21.09.2020 with the information that an excess amount of interest on HBA Advance Rs. 73812/= has been recovered from Dr Satyendra Singh. NCIPM. New Delhi. In reference to the above background. I hereby submit the following: That after receiving No Due Certificate, I made a request to refund my excess money Rs. 73812/- vide No. ICAR-NCIPM/RPKC/2020/030 dated 30.9.2020 and subsequent reminders dated 9.10.2020, 26.10.2020. No cogent reply or action has been taken by the concerned Office/Officials (Copy enclosed as Annexure-2) till date. That again a request letter for release of the excess amount of Rs. 73812/- deducted against the interest of HBA was written by AO, NCIPM, New Delhi to Finance and Accounts Officer, Audit-
III section of IARI, New Delhi vide F.No. HBA/2016/Estt. IPM/916/4 dated 17/2.2021 with details of Bank Account details as asked by the concerned section (copy enclosed as Annexure-3).
That in response to para-2 above, AF&AO, Audit-III, IARI, wrote a letter to AAO, Personal Claim and Advance (PC &A) Section, IARI, New Delhi for further necessary action to refund of excess money Rs 73812/-recovered against HBA interest vide F.No. Audit-III/2021-22 dated 31.08.2021 (copy enclosed as Annexure-4). It clearly shows that either Audit-III itself or the PC&A section is responsible for this refund.
That I made requests repeatedly to both sections i.e. Audit-III and/or PC&A but every time Audit-III replied that PC&A will refund your money a y and when I request the PC&A section, they replied that Audit-III is responsible for the refund of your excess money. But no one initiates the process to refund the same to till date.
That after a lot of harassment, I filed an application under RTI Act -2005, vide Registration No. IAGRI/R/E/21/00117 dated 19.12.2021 which was not replied to by the PIO/CPIO. Subsequently. I filed an appeal to First Appellant Authority vide Appeal Registration No. IAGRI/A/E/22/00004 dated 31.01.2022. This was duly 3 acknowledged by the Nodal Officer (RTI) vide No.3-430/2021-RTI/39 dated 01.02.2022 but no information was provided by any of the concerned respondents (copy enclosed as Annexure -5).
xxx ...after receiving the Notice of Hearing for Appeal/complaint, F&AO, Audit - III section sent me a letter under the subject Information under RTI Act-2005 vide File No. RTI/Audit-III/2023 dated 13.04.2023 (copy enclosed as Annexure-6). It is pertinent to note here that the letter did not reflect whether this is the reply from PIO/CPIO or First Appellant Authority. The information provided in this reply is misleading and far away from the requisite information. I am not satisfied with this reply and want to submit that-
Para 1 of my RTI application seeks information on details of action taken to refund my excess payment of Rs. 73812/- chronologically which was not provided in this reply. The information provided has the same contents as written on the No Due Certificate dated 21.09.2020 and after that, no action to refund the excess amount has been taken to till date.
Para 2 under reply is misleading as Section 2F of the RTI Act has no application in my case of refund of the excess amount transferred from one department to another, as evident from para 3 & 4 above, it is necessary for me to know from where and to whom I request for refund of my hard-earned money.
Para 3 also has no application in my case, as I am the victim, not the public information authorities. My question is for myself whether I claim interest on this amount or not. I neither ask a reason for a justification nor a question mark on their action for not initiating refund of my excess amount. It is my hard-earned money on which I have paid interest at the rate of 9.5% and the authority is not refunding the same for the last two and half years...."
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 13.04.2023 which is as under -
4While summing up his arguments, the CPIO tendered his unconditional apologies for delay in responding to the RTI application and explained that he took over the charge recently and his predecessor has since retired. He further prayed the Commission for condonation of the delay as it was unintentional. To a query from the Commission, the CPIO pleaded lack of knowledge regarding the exact data of pendency of RTI Applications in their section.
The Appellant kept harping on the fact that excess amount has not be refunded to him and he in fact, does not even know which is the concerned authority to deal with as the Respondent has been passing on the buck to other entities. To this, the CPIO responded to offer all support and assistance to the Appellant and invited him to his office to facilitate in resolution of the issue.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se as it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding alleged non-refund of excessive interest charged on his HBA and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.5
From the standpoint of RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO given now is as per the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
For better understanding of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be 6 converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission is baffled with the fact that no reply has ever been provided to the Appellant by the concerned then CPIO within the stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act. Further, the reasons accorded by the CPIO for the said omission are rather irksome to note as it was incumbent upon the public authority to proactively maintain/update the online RTIs and to ensure that RTI Applications are dealt with in a time bound manner with its proper access. If the RTI Applications received on the online portal are not attended to for the simple reason that it remained unattended due to oversight by the predecessors, the very purpose of filing an online RTI Application would be rendered obsolete. Looking into such casual conduct of the CPIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is in grave violation of the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of the above, since the concerned then CPIO (at the time of receipt of instant RTI Application) has since superannuated , the present CPIO is hereby directed to send a written explanation for not giving timely reply coupled with relevant information to the Appellant. The said written explanation of the present 7 CPIO along with supporting documents, if any, should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Lastly, the Commission by taking an empathetic view in the matter hereby directs the CPIO to arrange a meeting with the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time to ensure due assistance to facilitate resolving the issue. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
Also, the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8