Information regarding the stoppage of his Physically Handicapped Pension and the reasons were sought - CIC: Having claimed double pensions quoting two addresses, the appellant tried to browbeat the public authority using the RTI route; appeal dismissed
2. The appellant submitted that through his RTI application dt. 19-10-2012, he is seeking information regarding the stoppage of his Physically Handicapped Pension and the reasons thereof. The PIO replied on 22-11-2012. Being unsatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant made first appeal. FAA by his order dated 22-1-2013 directed the PIO to provide the information and also to redress his grievance. Claiming that the information furnished by the respondent authority is not satisfactory, the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission.
3. Heard the submissions. The respondent authority submitted that in this case the appellant was drawing 2 pensions simultaneously, obtained based on two applications with two different addresses. When the respondent authority discovered this anomaly, they have asked the appellant to return the excess amount of Rs.18,000/ paid to him, which he did not return so far. Because of this reason, the appellant’s pension was stopped. Instead of returning the amount of Rs. 18,000/ due to the respondent authority, the appellant chose to file an RTI application seeking action against the concerned officer of the respondent authority who stopped his pension. The appellant himself agreed that he was receiving 2 pensions and he got Rs.18,000/ extra and he is requesting for recovering the same in installments. The Commission feels that as far as his 2nd appeal before the Commission is concerned, the appellant got the entire information which he sought for and the respondent authority was kind enough to agree to restart his pension, provided he returns the extra amount of Rs.18,000/ to the respondent authority.
4. The Commission observes that this is a case of misuse of RTI Act because the appellant has not come to the public authority and Commission with clean hands. Having claimed double pensions quoting two addresses, knowing full well that one is entitled to one pension only, the appellant tried to browbeat the public authority using the RTI route. Very fact that he was seeking installments to repay the double amount received, proves that he is guilty of taking excessive public money. If this is done by a public servant he would have been prosecuted for the crime of misappropriation of public money. It is improper and unreasonable for the appellant to come up with this RTI application and pursuing it up to the level of second appeal without returning Rs. 18000 public money.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Mr. Ravi Kumar v. Deptt. Of Social Welfare, GNCTD, Delhi in File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001028SA