Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 2 April, 2019

                                के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067



नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DVCOR/A/2017/143334


 Sanjay Kumar Singh                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                                        ... निकायतकताग /Complainant


                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


 CPIO, Damodar Valley                                      ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
 Corporation, Kolkata


                                    ORDER

1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the CPIO, Shri Angshuman Mandal, Jt. Secretary, and deemed CPIO, Shri Om Prakash, Addl. Director (HR), IR Section, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata on 21.02.2019, in compliance with the Commission's order No. CIC/DVCOR/A/2017/143334, dated 24.08.2018, wherein the Commission had observed that the respondent acknowledged that complete information has not been furnished to the appellant by the deemed CPIO, Addl. Director (HR), IR Section, DVC Kolkata who is the custodian of the information. The CPIO and the deemed CPIO were directed to explain as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against them.

Hearing:

2. The respondent no. 1, Shri Anshuman Mondal, Joint Secretary and CPIO, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata, Shri Ashish Kumar Banerjee, Additional Director (HR) Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata and the respondent no. 2, Shri Om Prakash, Additional Director (HR), Industrial Relation (IR) Section, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conferencing.

3. The respondent no. 1 (Shri Anshuman Mondal) submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 25.10.2016 that the deemed CPIO had asked for extra time to extend the information sought for and had also stated that subsequently the requisite information could be disseminated to the appellant as and when available. However, the deemed CPIO, Additional Director (HR), IR Section, DVC, Kolkata, did not transmit information even after a lapse of four months. Subsequently, he had on receipt of reminder dated 09.01.2017, requested the Additional Director (HR/IR), DVC on 11.01.2017 to provide the information sought for along with official noting thereon. He further stated that the deemed CPIO had furnished information in this regard on 28.02.2017 which was forwarded to the appellant vide letter dated 01.03.2017. Thus, information as received from the 'deemed CPIO' was forwarded to the appellant. Hence, he is not responsible for the incorrect and incomplete information furnished to the appellant as the Additional Director (HR), IR Section, DVC, Kolkata did not provide correct and complete information to him for onward transmission to the appellant.

4. The respondent no. 2 (Shri Om Prakash) submitted that during the period when the RTI application was filed by the appellant, he was posted at Kolkata.

Hence, he was not the custodian of the information. Further, at the time of filing of first appeal, he was not the deemed CPIO and custodian of the documents and hence, he had merely forwarded the information received from Shri Ajit Kumar, Dy. Director (HR) to the CPIO through GM (HR). He reiterated that the information sought for was not related to Industrial Relations (IR) Section. The respondent requested the Commission that since he was not the custodian of the information sought for, he should not have been considered as a deemed CPIO.

Decision:

5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the RTI application was filed with the CPIO, DVC, Kolkata (Shri Anshuman Mandal) and as such he was responsible for ensuring that the information sought by the appellant is furnished to him as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission observes that the respondent no. 1 was aware that information had not been furnished to the appellant within time. Nonetheless, he merely sent reminder to the deemed CPIO and did not make sincere efforts to obtain information and furnish the same to the appellant. The respondent no. 2 also admitted that he had merely forwarded the information sent from Dy. Director (HR) to the CPIO without bothering to ascertain whether the information was relevant or not. Thus, both the CPIO and the deemed CPIO knowingly delayed transmission of information to the appellant. Consequently, incorrect and incomplete information on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application was provided to the appellant and that too after a lapse of more than four weeks. The Commission also notes that the Hon'ble Page 3 of 8 High Court of Delhi in the case of J.P. Agrawal vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP (C) No. 7232/2009, decision dated 04.08.2011] had observed as follows:

" 7. ......Under Section 6(1) and 7(1) of the RTI Act, it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is he who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information, the PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."

6. The Commission further notes that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Vivek Mittal vs B. P. Srivastava & Others [WP (C) No. 19122/2006, decision dated 24.08.2009] had observed as follows:

"5. ......a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with....... "

7. The Commission also notes that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case no. W.P.(C) 6088/2014 [Ministry of Railways vs. Girish Mittal] dated 12.09.2014 has held that:

"15. ........ cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials."

8. In view of the above, the Commission notes that Shri Anshuman Mondal, Joint Secretary and CPIO, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata is accountable for providing incorrect and incomplete information to the appellant vide letter dated 01.03.2017.

9. The Commission notes that though the respondent no. 2 (Shri Om Prakash), was not posted at Kolkata at the time of filing of RTI application, he was posted as Additional Director (HR), Industrial Relation (IR) Section, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata on 06.10.2016. The Commission observes that Section 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI application reads as follows:

"5. Designation of Public Information Officers.--

(4) The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.

(5) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub‑section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Page 5 of 8 Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be."

10. In the present matter, the respondent no. 1 (Shri Anshuman Mondal) had sought the assistance of the respondent no. 2 (Shri Om Prakash) to furnish information to the appellant. In view of this, as per Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, the respondent no. 2 (Shri Om Prakash) was mandated to render all assistance to the CPIO. Further, as per Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, the respondent no. 2 is also deemed as PIO for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission notes that the Dy. Director (HR)had put up a note to Shri Om Prakash which was forwarded by him mechanically to the CPIO which was then forwarded to the appellant vide letter 01.03.2017. Thus, Shri Om Prakash is also responsible for mechanically forwarding information submitted by his subordinate to the CPIO and thereby providing incorrect and incomplete information to the appellant.

11. In view of the above, the Commission observes that Shri Anshuman Mondal and Shri Om Prakash are liable to be penalized. The Commission, however, taking a lenient view in the matter, imposes a token penalty of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each on the CPIO, Shri Anshuman Mondal, Joint Secretary, DVC, Kolkata and Shri Om Prakash, Additional Director (HR), IR Section, DVC, Kolkata under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for providing incomplete and incorrect information to the appellant.

12. The First Appellate Authority, DVC, Kolkata is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each from the salary payable to Page 6 of 8 Shri Anshuman Mondal, Joint Secretary and CPIO, DVC, Kolkata and Shri Om Prakash, Additional Director (HR), IR Section, DVC, Kolkata by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of "PAO CAT", New Delhi. The draft should reach the Commission by 24.05.2019. The Demand Draft should be sent to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected], Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.

13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 29.03.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata - 700054.

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata - 700054.

3. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh Hirabag Kothi, Hirabag Chowk, Hazaribag, Jharkhand- 825301

4. The Deputy Registrar (CR-II), Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 Page 8 of 8