Appellant demanded penalty on the PIO claiming that PIO had rejected the application & the information was supplied only after the FAA’s order - CIC: In cases of malafide or unreasonable conduct, the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed u/s 20

Information sought:-

The applicant wants the photocopies of the following in respect of the letter CPT/MOC/1-30/2013 Allahabad dated 17/10/2013:-

1. Report of Sr. Sudpt.

2. Statement of branch Post Master Sunil Kumar.

3. Statement of Sh Rambaran Mishr.

4. Statement of Smt. Shilpa Saroj dated 26/09/2013.

Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Ramshankar A. Saroj through VC Respondent: Mr. A P Tiwari CPIO through VC

The appellant stated that the information was supplied only after the FAA’s order and the CPIO had wrongly rejected his application. He pleaded that penal proceedings should be initiated against the CPIO. The CPIO explained that the appellant had asked for copy of a statement recorded by a third party and he was under the bona fide belief that the information if disclosed could cause harm / injury to the person and hence he had denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act. He submitted that the information was supplied immediately on receipt of the FAA’s order.

Decision notice:

The information has been provided. As regards the appellant’s plea for initiating penal proceedings against the CPIO, it is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 01/06/2012, in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. W.P.(C) 11271/2009, while quashing the show cause notice issued by the Commission 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. of the RTI Act has held as under.

“61. ………………….It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafide or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the CPIO in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension on those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequence would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC………...”

The CPIO has explained that he was under the bona fide belief that if the statement recoded by the third party is disclosed it may cause harm / injury to the person and the information was supplied immediately on receipt of the FAA’s order. Thus, it is apparent that this case does not meet the requirement of 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. regarding CPIO not furnishing the information “without any reasonable cause”. There is also nothing to establish that the CPIO malafidely denied the request for information. Imposition of penalty on the CPIO, therefore, would not be justified. The matter is closed.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Ramshankar A. Saroj v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000440/6892