Misleading statements by deemed PIO before the Commission during the hearing - maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/– imposed upon the deemed PIO - disciplinary action also recommended against him
23 Jul, 2013Facts:
1. In the matter of show cause notice issued to the Assistant Commissioner/WZ, South Delhi Municipal Corporation vide order of even number dated 21 May 2013 the CPIO appeared before the Commission today for personal hearing. Appellant was also present. It was stated by the appellant that he had received the requested information on 12 July 2013. CPIO accepted that the information provided previously to the appellant as held in note dated 18 October 2012 which was signed by Shri Rajinder Prasad Dagar and forwarded to the appellant vide covering letter dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. October 2012 under the signature of the CPIO was indeed vague and evasive. CPIO could not explain with any degree of credibility as to the reasons which prompted him to forward this evasive and vague reply to the appellant under his signature.
2. Further, Commission notes that Shri Rajinder Prasad Dagar was present for the hearing on 21 May 2013 and made false and misleading statements before the Commission which are recorded in order of even number dated 21 May 2013 in para 6 of theorder. Shri RP Dagar falsely stated that he is in no way connected with the case whereas in fact it is Shri RP Dagar who has signed the original note dated 18 October 2012 which was forwarded to the appellant by the CPIO as noted above. It is also observed that Shri Rajinder Prasad Dagar signed his name as Rajinder (the word Prasad is not clearly written) even on the attendance sheet of the Commission on 21 May 2013 with a view to concealing his true identity and to mislead the Commission as his name could not be properly noted in the Commission’s order of that date.
Decision notice
3. After hearing the averments of the CPIO and recording the facts of the case, Commission directs that maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/– be imposed upon the CPIO, Shri Ajay Bisht for having provided false and misleading information to the appellant vide his letter dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. October 2012 and further for not having provided information to the appellant even after receiving the order of the first appellate authority wherein he was specifically directed to provide information to the appellant within three days time. It is placed on record that information has now been provided to the appellant on 12 July 2013 that is, after almost one year.
4. The Dy. Commissioner/West Zone is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/from the salary of the CPIO Shri Ajay Bisht, Asstt. Commissioner/West Zone 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. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs. 5000/ per month every month from the salary of the CPIO and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from August , 2013. The total amount of Rs.25,000/ will be remitted by 10th of January,2014.
5. Further, as per the powers of the Commission under section 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. of the Act, Commission recommends to the Deputy Commissioner, Incharge West zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation to take disciplinary action against the former SS, Shri RP Dagar under the service rules applicable to him for having made false averments before the Commission which is a quasijudicial body and also for having provided false and misleading information to the appellant vide his note dated 18 October 2012.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Citation: Smt. Saroj, Delhi v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi in Adjunct to Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/00 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 42