Vide order dated 20 January 2011, the bench of Shri Shailesh Gandhi had granted compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant which was not paid – CIC now imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the then PIO and enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 5000/-
Vide dated 20 January 2011, the bench of Shri Shailesh Gandhi had granted compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant which was not paid - CIC did not accept the plea that the respondent did not receive the last page of the order when they could have visited the website of the CIC and downloaded the said order - the information sought was also not provided - CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the then PIO who did not appear before the CIC and deputed his junior to represent him at the hearing - CIC enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 2000/- awarded earlier to Rs. 5000/-
1. A perusal of the documents on record indicates that this matter was heard by the bench of Information Commissioner, Shri Shailesh Gandhi and directions were given vide order no. CIC/SG/8/2010/003310/11074 dated 20 January 2011. Subsequently vide order dated 4 February 2011, case was heard in the matter of show cause notice but respondent did not appear. Subsequently, the matter was heard once again and directions were given vide order dated 24 May 2011 whereby Commission directed Assistant Commissioner Shri U.N. Mehta to identify the officer responsible for delay in providing information and inform the Commission before 15 August 2011. Commission has not received any such report from the Assistant Commissioner named above nor is the respondent able to provide a copy of the said report in his own file.
2. Respondent has stated that so far the compensation of Rs. 2000/- that was awarded to the appellant vide the order dated 20 January 2011 has also not been paid to the appellant.
3. Commission notes that this matter has been inordinately delayed by all concerned in the public authority. Even the directions of the first appellate authority dated 24 May 2011 which clearly directed the CPIO/SEI to provide information to the appellant which should have been complied with latest by 30 August 2011 was not implemented by the then CPIO. Commission cannot accept the plea taken by the respondent that they did not receive the last page of the order dated 20 January 2011 as the reason for noncompliance when in fact they could have visited the website of the Commission and downloaded the said order. Even the compensation of Rs. 2000/- awarded to the appellant by the Commission has not been released in his favour. The information sought has also not been provided to date. Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned facts, Commission imposes penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the hen CPIO/SEI who has also absented himself from appearing before the Commission today and has of his own accorded deputed the EE(B)I, Shahadara South Zone, who is junior to him in rank, to represent him at the hearing today. The CPIO/SEI who was holding the post during the period May 2011 up to August/September 2013 will deposit the penalty amount in five equal installments @ Rs.5000/pm.
4. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the salary of the CPIO / SEI 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 Delhi 110066. 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 November, 2013. The total amount of Rs. 25,000/- will be remitted by 10th of April, 2014.
5. In view of the further inconvenience, harassment and detriment caused to the appellant on account of denial of information to him, Commission enhances the compensation amount from Rs. 2000/- awarded earlier to Rs. 5000/-.
6. The current CPIO will provide the requested information to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of the order failing which he will attract penalty as per the provisions of the Act.
7. With these directions the matter is closed at the Commission’s end.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Amit Agarwal v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation in Complaint: No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000101