Delay in providing information claimed to have occurred due to heavy workload and oversight - on the same subject, information was provided to the applicant in eight previous RTI applications - CIC: Total penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on three officers
1. Further to Commission’s order of even number dated 20 June 2013, matter was heard today. Both parties as above appeared in person and made submissions. It was stated by the respondent that with reference to the RTI application dated 26 April 2012 submitted by the appellant, the information was put up vides note dated 2 July 2012 by the Assistant Engineer (B)/SPZ to the EE (B)/SPZ who returned it with query "Why put up today?" and returned it to the AE (B) on 31 July 2012. Thereafter, this information was never dispatched to the appellant due to an error and after the mistake was detected, the information was provided to the appellant on 24 June 2013. Appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him on points 2, 3 and 6.
2. After hearing both the parties Commission directs as follows:
Point 2: PIO will provide a copy of the calculation sheet vide which the measurements of the builtup property were calculated, to the appellant.
Point 3: PIO will provide to the appellant a copy of the rates applied for regularization of condonable deviations from authorized plan.
Point 6: PIO will also provide the correct number of the payment receipt (G8 no.)
3. Information as above to be provided within two weeks of receipt of the order.
4. Commission has taken note of the averments of the respondents who have appeared today. It is submitted that the applicant has previously submitted eight RTI applications on the same subject and that information has been provided to him on each of these. It is also stated that the delay in providing information occurred on account of heavy workload and due to oversight.
5. It is evident that the RTI application is dated 26 April 2012 and that the requested information has been provided after almost 14 months. From the documents provided to the Commission by the respondents, it is observed that the JE (B)/SPZ put up the desired information to the AE (B)/SPZ on 2 July 2012 who forwarded the said communication to the EE (B) on the same day. The EE (B)/SPZ returned the note to the AE (B)/SPZ on 31 July 2012 with noting as recorded above instead of signing the note and directing that the information be forwarded to the appellant. Therefore all three officers have contributed to the delay in providing information to the appellant. Accordingly Commission imposes penalty of Rs. 5,000/ – on the JE(B) and penalty of Rs. 10,000/each on the AE(B) and EE(B)SPZ total of which is Rs. 25,000/–. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 5,000/from the salary of JE(B) in the month of December, 2013 and Rs.10,000/( in two instalments @ Rs.5,000/pm) of the salary of AE(B) and EE(B)SPZ in the months of November, 2013 and January 2014 and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director and Joint Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2nd. Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi110066.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri M.M. Haneef v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation in Adjunct to Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002239