CIC admonished the representatives of the PIO over the incorrigible conduct of the said PIO, as has been observed in a number of matters adjudicated upon by the bench in the past - Show case notice issued to Lt. Col Rohit Jalwi for imposing penalty
19 Aug, 2017Information about tenders was sought - CIC admonished the representatives of the PIO over the incorrigible conduct of the said PIO, as has been observed before in a number of matters adjudicated upon by the bench concerning the same PIO - The CIC directed the PIO to resend a revised reply to the Appellant incorporating the information - The PIO, Lt. Col Rohit Jalwi was directed to appear in person before the CIC on 12.09.2017 at 01.15pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. and 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to know the tender numbers of all manning and operation contracts since 2012 till 2016; to which firm these were awarded and amount paid for each contract; details of Second Appellate Authority; attendance details of all labourers employed for these contracts and details of payments made to them; copy of their gate pass and police verification forms etc.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Avnish Kumar Garg in person.
Respondent: Capt. P.K. Chand, AGE, E&M-II, Rep. of CPIO, Garrison Engineer (North), Air Force, Palam, Delhi Cantt. present in person.
Appellant stated that he has not received the information till date and is aggrieved with the conduct of the CPIO.
Representative of the CPIO submitted that information has been provided to the Appellant on 05.08.2017, and handed over a copy of the same to the Commission for perusal. Upon Commission’s instance he had nothing to submit for the inordinate delay of the CPIO in providing the information. Further, there were no reasons accorded for the sheer number of times CPIO, Lt. Col. Rohit Jalwi has failed to regard the provisions of the RTI Act and even the Commission’s directions.
At this stage, Commission admonished the representatives of the CPIO over the incorrigible conduct of the said CPIO, as has been observed before in a number of matters adjudicated upon by this bench concerning the same CPIO. Representatives pleaded that a last opportunity may be offered to the CPIO, Lt. Col. Rohit Jalwi before taking any adverse decision.
Further, Commission observed that even the reply provided on 05.08.2017 is not complete and that CPIO has inappropriately denied information on query no. 2 of the RTI Application vaguely citing security reasons. Exemption, if any, is applicable only under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act for the police verification forms and gate passes of the labourers which will entail disclosing personal information of these third parties.
Decision
In view of the foregoing, Commission directs the CPIO to resend a revised reply to the Appellant incorporating information on the opening para of the RTI Application wherein, Appellant has sought the number of manning and operation tenders awarded from year 2012 to 2016; to whom these were awarded and for what amount, on query no. 2 of the RTI Application, CPIO should provide the attendance record and payment details of the labourers to the Appellant. Commission’s directions should be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this RTI Application.
Further, in view of the blatant violation of the provisions of RTI Act by the CPIO, Lt. Col Rohit Jalwi in not having provided any reply on the RTI Application under reference, he is directed to appear in person before the Commission at New Delhi on 12.09.2017 at 01.15pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. and 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act. He is directed to bring along copy of all supporting documents on which he wishes to rely on in his submissions. If he fails to appear before the Commission to show cause on the scheduled date and time, ex-parte action will be initiated against him.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Surendra Kumar Garg v. Garrison Engineer (North) Air Force in File No. CIC/IAIRF/A/2017/101559/SD, Date of Decision: 10/08/2017