Central Information Commission
Mohan Lal Atarwal vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 23 July, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/109344/01141
File no.: CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/109344
In the matter of:
Mohan Lal Atwal
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer/ Principal
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2
Ajmer-305 005, (Rajasthan)
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 23/08/2017 CPIO replied on : 19/09/2017 First appeal filed on : 04/10/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 03/11/2017 Second Appeal dated : 05/02/2018 Date of Hearing : 22/07/2019 Date of Decision : 22/07/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri G.S Mehta, Principal and APIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought following information
1. Certified copy of rules and guidelines under which the DDO has paid the medical bills of employees of Kendriye Vidyalaya and their dependents for the medical facilities availed from Ghisibai Memorial hospital from 01/01/2007 to 20/03/2017.
2. Certified copy of rules and guidelines under which medical bills have been paid when the patients were not referred by the State Govt.
hospital.
13. Medical bills have been paid for decade but no objection was made in audit reports. Under which rule the present DDO has de-recognised the said hospital.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply as it was not in consonance with the RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided vide letter dated 19.09.2017. He further submitted that the information sought by the appellant is similar to his earlier RTI application dated 20.03.2017.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the RTI application dated 23.08.2017 it is noted that the appellant in the garb of seeking information in 25 points of his present RTI application is trying to redress his grievance relating to reimbursement of medical bills. The CPIO in his reply denied the information sought u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. There were 6 appeals fixed today for hearing of the same appellant. In each application he has sought information on 25 points, 28 points, 27 points, 46 points, 5 points and 36 points respectively. It is pertinent to mention here that since the appellant continues to file RTI applications, repeatedly seeking the similar information, his attention is drawn to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.:
" 37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, 2 File no.: CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/109344 efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
At this juncture, the Commission would like to reiterate the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781:
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law"
The CIC while deciding the case of Bidhan Chandra Das v. PIO, Department of Post, File no.CIC/POSTS/C/2017/128380) has held as under:
"it is an unscrupulous abuse of RTI by the appellant by filing multiple frivolous RTI applications out of vengeance of being reverted to a lower grade in the Department for no purpose, just for the purpose of harassing the department and colleagues. The officers expressed their agony and sought action against the appellant for causing wastage of time and mental harassment through his filthy remarks and character assassination of the lady officers. It is surprising that the public authority is not taking 3 any action against this officer who allegedly abused the office and also RTI. It is also not known what action was taken against the appellant on the complaints of lady colleagues alleging sexual harassment. It is also surprising that the individual victims also did not take any legal action against the appellant."
The CIC while deciding the case of Rajan Madhavv. SBI, File no.CIC/MP/A/2015/001240, 001242, 001243 has held as under:
"the Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties."
The CIC while deciding the case of Dr. K.C. Vijayakumaran Nair v. Department of Posts, File no.CIC/PB/A/2007/00373 has held as under:
"The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Unfortunately, a large number of the government employees are seeking information for promotion of their personal interest. This is done on the pretext of serving the public cause, without realizing the extent of distortions that it causes in use of public resources due to putting up frivolous applications by them for self- interest."
In HK Bansal v Department of Telegraph, New Delhi, CIC/BS/A/2014/002319¬SA, this Commission concluded:
Whether serving/retired employees are having any right to behave in such a manner to torture his colleagues and employer? The Commission opines that such a conduct deserves to be considered as mis-conduct. There should be a system within the Public Authority to tackle such misconduct of any serving employee/retired employee or by any other staff member/out-sourced or similar nature, because they are becoming 4 File no.: CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/109344 potential hazards of RTI misuse. Public authority should have evolved a mechanism and service rules or include in conduct rules, to initiate departmental action against existing/retired employees for such misbehaviour or misconduct and impose penalty in the nature of cutting increments or pension emoluments for serving or retiring employees accordingly. If the RTI application from its own employee reflects a grievance or compliant, the public authority should address grievance immediately and inform him within one month. If the RTI application is repeated, frivolous or useless one and only meant for harassing other employees or public authority as a whole, then the disciplinary action should be initiated for such alleged misconduct, leading to appropriate action. If they do not act at all against such characters (retired or not retired employees) in indulging in such misconduct of filing frivolous and entertain these repeated RTI applications it will cause huge wasting of public money. The public authority is answerable to public why they are facilitating the misconduct causing damage to public exchequer. Each department has to address the issue of misusing RTI by employee, after thoroughly examining each individual case separately.
The ratio of the above mentioned judicial pronouncements is applicable to the present case.
Decision:
The Commission holds the appellant as a misuser of the RTI Act and warns him to stop such harassment of his colleagues and the officers of the institution. The appellant is once again advised to stop filing multiple RTI applications repeatedly which is nothing short of an abuse of the process of law and an attempt to virtually intimidate the Institute. In case the appellant continues to prefer RTI applications which are vexatious and frivolous in nature and are multiple RTIs on the same or similar subject with a view to disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, the PIO will be free to deny information under the provisions of section 7 (9) of the Act.5
In view of the above discussion a limited relief is granted to the appellant and the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply by enclosing the copies of rules and guidelines relating to reimbursement of medical bills within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, which shall fulfill the information sought in the present RTI application.
The appellant is advised to henceforth use his right to information in a responsible manner and be specific while seeking information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 6