Central Information Commission
J P Saini vs Department Of Posts on 24 July, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. SridharAcharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815
J P Saini v. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 23.08.2016, CPIO replied on 05.10.2016, FAO on 10.11.2016, Second
appeal filed on 03.02.2017, Hearing on 21.02.2018;
Proceedings on 21.02.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr. Manoj
Kumar: Show-cause issued.
Proceedings on 03.04.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr S. K.
Singhal, CPIO.Show-cause and directions for compliance issued.
Proceedings on 21.05.2018: Appellant present from NIC Rohtak, Public Authority represented
by CPIO. Mr Shudha Ram Sharma from NIC Bhiwani:
Date of Decision - 23.07.2018: Penalty dropped and disposed of.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information regarding name of competent authority who accepts the resignation of a BCR official in clericalcadre, copy of application of Shri Gaje Singh seeking voluntary retirement from service, copy of letter of recommendation from SPOs Bhiwani A/T CPMGAmbalawho accepted the resignation, copy of letter from o/o CPMG Ambala accepting the resignation ofShri Gaje Singh etc. on total eleven points. The CPIO on 05.10.2016 gave a point wise reply to the appellant. Not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO on point Nos. 2 to 7 and 10 to 11, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 10.11.2016 stated that information sought on point nos. 10 and 11 are not available with them, hence the same cannot be provided.
Regarding point nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are not specific and point no. 5 denied under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the above responses, the appellant approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 23.02.2018:
2. The officer representing the respondent authority appears not prepared well with the case, therefore, he could not represent the case properly. The Commission records its displeasure that the public authority did not depute a responsible officer to present their case. Consequently, they wasted precious time CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 1 of both the public office and the Commission. The Commission takes serious note of it and warns the respondent authority to deputea responsible officer to present the case before the Commission.
3. The Commission upon perusal of the records finds thatrespondent failed to provide complete information, therefore, the respondent authority is directed to provide point wise information to the appellant within 20 days of the date of receipt of this Order.
4. The Commission directs Mr. S. K. Singhal, CPIO, to show-cause why the maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him, for not providing the complete information to the appellant.
5. All the explanations must reach to this Commission before 20.03.2018 and the matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceeding on 20.03.2018.
3. The Commission's order dated 04.04.2018:
3. Mr. S.K. Singhal, CPIO submitted that he was not the CPIO as on date of filing of RTI application and the concerned CPIO was Mr. Sadhu Ram Sharma, SPO, Bhiwani.
4. The Commission takes note that the Public Authority has not furnished the information till date despite this Commission's order dated 23.02.2018. Mr. S.K. Singhal, CPIO is directed to provide complete information along with certified copies of the documents sought, within ten days.
5. The Commission directs Mr. Sadhu Ram Sharma, SPO of Bhiwani and CPIO as on 05.10.2106, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information sought and for non-compliance of this Commission's order dated 23.02.2018.
6. Mr. S.K. Singhal, CPIO is directed to secure the explanation of Mr. Sadhu Ram Sharma and send the same to this Commission, before 21.05.2018. The matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on the aforesaid date.
Decision:
4. Mr. S K Singhal, the CPIO, in compliance of the order of the Commission,submitted to the Commission as under:-
It is submitted that the application dated 28.07.2016 of the above named applicant having 10 paras. The required and available information has already been supplied to the appellant vide this officer letter of even no dated 31.08.2016. Therefore the order passed by the CPIO is under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point-wise Comments on the Appeal Vide Para no. 1 &2 of his above mentioned application, the applicant requested to supply the attested photocopies of complaints against sh. sadhu Ram Sharma SPo's Bhiwani during the period 01.03.2015 to 28.07.2016. In this regard it is submitted that the particulars of information has not been mentioned by the applicant sought and the same has already been replied to the applicant vide this office letter of even No dated 31.08.2016 underthe purview of RTI Act-2005.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 2 Vide Para No"3 to 5 & 7 to 10 the required information has already been supplied to the applicant hence no comments required. Vide para no. 6 of his above mentioned application, the applicant requested to supply the photo copy of punishment order in rlo Shri Gaje Singh. In this regard it is submitted that the required information is third party information which is exempted under the section11 (2) of RTI Act, 2005 and the same has already been replied to the applicant under the purview of RTI Act 2005. Hence it is most respectfully submitted that the orders passed by the CPIO is as per rule laid down under RTI Act, 2005.
5. In response to the show-cause notice, the then CPIO, Mr. Sadhu Ram vide letter dated 14.05.2018, explained to the Commission as under:-
Most respectfully, It is submitted that I, am, Sadhu Ram Sharma retired Superintendent Post Offices Bhiwani had worked as SPOs Bhiwani cum CPIO during the period 31.03.2015 to 28.02.2017. In the capacity of CPIO, I supplied available and admissible information to the applicants under RTI Act 2005. In the case under reference I have been directed by your good selfto show- cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon me for following reasons:
1. For not furnishing the information sought by the applicant.
2. For non compliance of Commission's order dated23.02.2018.
Before submitting my explanation I would like to mention facts of the case in brief so as to provide a clear and better picture to my version.
Brief History: Copy of application dated 23.08.2016 of one Sh. J.P. Saini r/o 833/10, Roopnagar Rohtak addressed to CPIO & Asstt. Postmaster General (Staff), Haryana Circle, Ambala seeking information under RTI Act 2005 was received in the o/o SPOs Bhiwani cum CPIO on 09.09'2016. The required, available and admissible information was supplied to the applicant vide SPOs Bhiwani letter no. CR/RTI/117/2016-17 dated 05.10.2016.
However the applicant was not satisfied with the reply given to him by the CPIO and he had appealed to first appellate authority vide his application dated 20.10.2016. The first appellate authority disposed off the appeal by passing speaking orders vide memo no. RTI/6-2/Appeal//152/2015 that the reply of CPIO is under the purview of RTI Act.
In this regard the appellant had challenged the reply of the CPIO in respect of Para no. 2 to 7, 10 and 11. Accordingly the reply is furnished below:-
Contention of the appellant in respect of Para no. 2&3: The information is very specific but CPIO cum SPOs Bhiwani denied the information on flimsy ground as he is responsible for getting the resignation of Shri Gaje Singh accepted when a disciplinary case was pending against him. (Shri Gaje Singh). He is also responsible to conceal the facts with Circle Office Ambala. Proper action was not taken against Shri Gaje Singh by Shri Sadhu Ram Sharma and that is why the information was CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 3 denied. This is a case of deliberately denial of available information. Kindly advise the CPIO to supply the information immediately.
My submission in respect of Para no.2& 3: It is submitted that as per the section 6 (l) of RTI Act 2005 any applicant while seeking information have to furnish its complete particulars so as to enable the CPIO for providing him the required information. It is clearly evident from the contents of Para that applicant now, here mentioned the date of application which was required by the applicant as the said Sh. Gaje Singh had been seeking voluntarily retirement since the year 2012 time and again. Under the purview of RTI Act information cannot be provided on assumption basis and any information can be traced out only if adequate and specific particulars are provided. Therefore, the reply of the CPIO was within the purview of RTI Act and same was upheld by the first appellate authority. The applicant was not denied of any information instead the CPIO was unable to locate the exact information due to inadequate/incomplete particulars furnished by the applicant.
Contention of the appellant in respect of Para no. 4: The information called for is very much specific but denied on flimsy ground. Reply furnished is not proper. Photocopy of his office letter No. CR/RTI-104/2016-17 dated 23.09.2016 is enclosed as annexure-iv which is self explanatory. This is a case of deliberately denial of available information. Kindly advise the CPIO to supply the information without further delay.
My submission in respect of Para no.4: Same as discussed in Para no. 2 above no specific particulars i.e. letter no, date etc were provided by the applicant which were required by him' Contention of the appellant in respect of Para no. 5:
The information was denied on flimsy grounds. A charge sheet is a official document and it cannot be treated as personal information, The CPIO is guilty that is why he has denied the information which is not proper.
My submission in respect of Para no. 5: It is submitted that it has been held in various judgment of CIC and Hon'ble Court that information related to disciplinary action taken against any employee is matter of personal information of the charged official. For instance Hon'ble Commission vide its decision dated 26.06.2013 in case mark CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 titled as Sh. Manoj Arya Vs CPIO Cabinet Secretariat had held that information relating to disciplinary action against an employee is a personal information and could not be disclosed under section 8(1) O of RTI Act 2005. The applicant had no connection to the disclosure of the information related to any specific person. Moreover, he did not mention any ground in his application which may show any public interest in disclosing the information to the applicant. Therefore as provided in section 8(l) 0) of RTI Act 2005 the applicant was replied accordingly and the decision of the CPIO was upheld by the First appellate authority also.
Contention of the appellant in respect of Para no. 6: The information called for is very much specific but denied on flimsy ground. Reply furnished is not proper. Photocopy of his office letter no. CR/RTI10412016-17 dated 23.09.2016 as quoted in annexure-iii is enclosed as annexure-iv. This is a case of deliberately denial of available information. Kindly advise the CPIO to supply the information without further delay.
My submission in respect of Para no. 6: The information sought was similar to as mentioned in Para no. 2, therefore the same reply may kindly be considered please.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 4 Contention of the appellant in respect of Para no. 7: The information called for is very much specific but denied on flimsy ground. The CPIO is guilty that is why he has denied the information which is not proper. This is a case of deliberately denial of available information. Kindly advise the CPIO to supply the information without further delay.
My submission in respect of Para no. 7: It is submitted that in Para no. 7 applicant neither mentioned the date of declaration of result nor mentioned the year of examination of MTS cadre. Therefore in lack of these particulars CPIO could not provide any information. Hence suitable reply was given accordingly. Para no. 10 & 11: It is submitted that in these Para information required by the applicant was not related to the CPIO Bhiwani and was not available with the CPIO. Therefore no information could be provided.
As the first appellate authority had disposed off the appeal of the applicant upholding the decision of the CPIO, therefore the appellant filed 2"d appeal before the Hon'ble CIC. The date of hearing was held on23.02.2018 and orders were passed without going into merit of the case and SPOs Bhiwani cum CPIO was directed to supply the information to the applicant. The Hon'ble CIC further held hearing in the case and orders dated 04.04.2018 were passed directing me to submit explanation for not furnishing the information to the applicant and for not comply with the orders dated 23.02.2018 passed by the commission. It is submitted that orders were passed on23.02.2018 whereas I have already been retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2017 and as such was not CPIO Bhiwani for making compliance on your good self orders dated 23.02.2018.
In the preceding Paras, I replied to contention raised by the applicant with respect to reply given to him vide the then SPOs Bhiwani cum CPIO (undersigned) vide letter dated 05.1 0.2016. However, as per direction of the Hon'ble Commission I would like to submit some points in support of my version.
Preliminary contentions:
1. That I have been asked for explaining the reasons after the orders had been passed in the appeal. Had I been given chance to explain my version at an earlier stage i.e. prior to at the time of personal hearing then my submission could be a material fact for arriving at any decision by the Hon'ble CIC.
2. That I have been asked for submitting explanation for non compliance of the orders dated 23.02.2018 of the commission whereas I had already retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2017.
3. There is no violation of any section of RTI Act 2005 in replying to the applicant and all reply had been given to the applicant with reference to the relevant section of the RTI Act and based on various decision passed by the Hon'ble CIC and Hon'ble Court.
4. Section 21 of RTI Act 2005 provide protection of action taken in good faith.
The undersigned being a CPIO consider the application of the applicant with the purview of RTI and judge the applicability of act as per best of my knowledge and conscience. The reply of the CPIO was also upheld by the Hon'ble First Appellate authority. Therefore, there is no procedural lacuna or any malafide intention on part of the CPIO in replying to the applicant and hence no penalty justify on the CPIO.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 5
5. It is submitted that while considering the appeal of said Sh. J.P. Saini your good self himself inter alia held clear finding in case mark CIC/POSTS/A/2017/160940 & CIC/POSTS/A/2O17/149122 vide decision dated 21.11.2017 & 24.11.2017 respectively which reflects that said Sh. J.P. Saini has been habitual of filing repeated RTI just to harass public authority and is highly irresponsible and unmindful of wasting public money and time of public authority. Your good self also held that the appellant is not an ordinary citizen but has acted as CPIO for five to six years. He does not deserve any sympathy.
Reply on Merit:
1. It is submitted that there is no violation of any section of RTI Act by the undersigned in reply given to the applicant vide CPIO Bhiwani letter no. CR/RTI/117/2016-17 dated 05.10.2016.
2. The applicant was not deliberately denied for supplying the information, instead either the definite information could not be traced due to lack of particulars furnished by the applicant or information could not be disclosed being exempted under section 8 (1) of RTI Act
3. It is submitted that applicant had been worked as CPIO as well as SPOs Bhiwani during the period 25.06.2005 to 30.03.2009. His RTI applications are centric to individual with whom he has any personal revenge. The approach of the applicant is not a information seeker instead he is using this platform to throw mud on others.
4. It is also submitted that applicant had been habitual of seeking repeated information under RTI Act. In present application also he has sought information in respect of Para no 4 to 7 which had already been provided to him vide SPOs cum CPIO letter dated 23.09.2016. The attention is invited towards Hon'ble CIC vide his decision dated 25.06.2014 in case no CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi, in which the issue of seeking information by the RTI Applicants through repetitive Applications on similar issues/subject has been considered and decided by the Central Information Commission. The Central Information Commission, in its decision, had observed that:
"The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the responses file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority. As the PIOs go on answering, more and more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals will be growing."
The commission after considering various aspects of the issue and the provisions of acts of similar nature in other countries, and also the decisions of earlier Information Commissioners has concluded that:
"(i) Even a single repletion of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been sent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 6
(ii) Every repletion of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission, vide its decision 25.06.2014 has thus, decided that:
"(i) No Scope of repeating under RTI Act.
(ii) Citizen has no Right to Repeat
(iii) Repetition shall be ground of refusal
(iv) Appeals can be rejected
5. I would like to invite your kind attention towards your honor decision dated 21.11 .2017 in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2017//160940. In your comprehensive decision reference had been made to approximately 251 RTIs (which involves this RTI also in which my explanation is sought) filed by the applicant and Commission mentioned clear findings in Para no. 11 to 17 which inter alia upheld the fact that applicant had been involved in misuse of RTI Act and Public authority cannot waste public money by responding to repeated RTIs through registered, filed with malicious intention. The commission also held that the appellant does not deserve any information from the Public authority under RTI Act on these aspects. The Hon'ble CIC had also mentioned findings of Hon'ble Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justice R.V. Raveendran and justice A.K. Patnaik held in the landmark judgment of CBSE & Anr. v Aditya Bandopadhyay and ors: "Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the 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 counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive (government) getting bogged down with the non-production work of collecting and furnishing information.
It is also pertinent to mention here that commission vide para no. 17 had recommended the Public Authority to explore the possibility of initiating legal action against Mr. J.P. saini though he is a retired Class-I officer to free the public Authority from unreasonable wastage of public time and money.
Similarly case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/149122, your good self vide orders dated 24.11.2017 disposed off the appeal of the appellant (Sh. J.P. Saini) with finding that public authority cannot waste public money by responding to repeated RTIs through registered, filed with malicious intention. The appellant does not deserve any information from the Public Authority under RTI Act on these aspects. Therefore, your good self had opinioned that said Sh. J.P. Saini had misused the RTI Act and department of Post has enough evidence to act against this appellant who made the Public Authority to waste most of its time on his frivolous applications and recommended the Public Authority to explore the possibility of initiating legal action against Mr, J.P. Saini.
6. It is submitted that RTI platform is for seeking information and not for raising any grievance or personal allegation. The applicant is misusing the Act and imposing false and baseless allegation upon me without any evidence. The applicant without any right or authority is trying to be in the shoe of CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 7 Hon'ble judiciary by passing his own judgment regarding one's character or integrity. It is highly objectionable and apparently a matter of defamation. It is beyond my senses how the Hon'ble CIC can rely on false version of the applicant and allow him to misuse the RTI Act. It is submitted that while the said Sh. J.P. Saini had been working as SPOs Bhiwani, I had worked as ASPO (Hq) Bhiwani. As I am not in habit of doing any wrong things under pressure, I did not to be his line of, action and kept his mind for settling score with me in future with the motive of quidproquo he made abortive attempt to defamed me in one way or the other. Similarly he made futile efforts to let me down in other many cases. There is nothing truth in allegation and completely devoid of any genuineness of facts. It is submitted that no employee/person is superior to the System. There is dedicated authority for each matter and any individual cannot consider himself over and above from the system. I have been retired on superannuation on28.02.2017 with full of respect without any allegation of any type of corruption by the competent authority which itself speaks that all the allegations of the applicant are motivated by his revengeful attitude towards me as I did not bow to his supremacy. When he did not succeed in malafide tactics of defaming me, he has opted the mean of RTI.
7. It is mere an eye wash of the applicant that he is fighting against the corruption by grabbing confidential information of loss and fraud cases which are still pending. The applicant is interested in seeking CLVDLI, copy of charge sheet and punishment orders etc without owing any responsibility to these cases. Such types of information speaks about the evidence come in the fraud case and involvement of various persons etc. It would never be in fitness of completion of fair finalization of the case that such confidential information disclose to such person who is indulge in maintaining a parallel record of loss and fraud case in his personal custody by means of seeking RTI information. There are many involved person in the loss & fraud cases and disclosing such information under FJI Act prior to finalization of the case would have possibility of not only hamper the inquiry process but also affect the process of finalization of disciplinary case of all involved persons inthe loss & fraud case. Therefore, I request Hon'ble CIC to look on this aspect also as the applicant is owing no responsibility to loss and fraud case and he had retired since long but he still so interested in procuring information which could be further disclosed to any other person connected to the case.
8. Finally, I would like to pray before the Hon'ble Commission that I have not acted in a manner which may warrant any penalty on me. My decision was within the purview of RTI Act for the following reasons:
(a) That there is no such case that application of the applicant was refused.
His application was properly received and suitably been replied within the time limit fixed in the RTI Act.
(b) That there is no such case of any malafidely denial of information. The available information was supplied and some information could not be traced out due to incomplete particulars furnished by the applicant. The information which relates to third party was decided not to disclose as provision provided in the Act.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 8
(c) That I have been acted keeping in view the best possible assessment of Act as per my capacity and in light of decision passed by the Hon'ble CIC itself as per reference given by me.
(d) That I have been asked for submitting explanation for non compliance of the orders dated 23.02.2018 of the commission whereas I had already retired from service on28.02.2017.
Therefore, it is submitted that reply given to the applicant vide this office letter dated 05.10.2016 was within the purview of RTI Act which was upheld by the first appellate authority. The appeal of the applicant is devoid of merit and show cause issued to me for non supplying the information may kindly be withdrawn keeping in view the factual submission made by the undersigned.
6. Upon perusal of the records and submissions made by the parties, the Commission finds that complete and point wise information has been provided by the CPIO Mr. S.K. Singhal and order of the commission has been complied with. The Commission also finds that detailed submission given by Mr. Sadhu Ram Sharma is reasonable and convincing. Hence, the penalty proceedings are dropped.
SD/-
(M.SridharAcharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/108815 Page 9