Appellant filed a complaint in the year 2009 against wrongful possession of shops by non-allottees & after an year, sought the action taken on his complaint - He was informed that investigation is pending - CIC: Penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on two PIOs

Show Cause Hearing u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act (31.10.2014)

The Commission vide order dt. 17.10.2014, had issued a show cause notice to PIO(Vig.), SDMC as to why penalty should not be imposed on him, for persistently obstructing the flow of information by not complying with the Commission’s order dt. 12.03.2014. Shri Deepak Rastogi, PIO/ADOV stated that the matter has been closed at the end of the Vigilance Dept. and the same has been intimated to the appellant. Further, the concerned file has been transferred to the South Zone for further action vide letter dt. 25.06.2014. On query by the Commission as to what is the outcome of the said enquiry by the Vigilance, the PIO stated that the enquiry does not pertain to Vigilance Dept. On query by the Commission as to why the appellant was made to run from pillar-to-post when the same could have been informed to the appellant, at the very first instance, i.e. in response to his RTI application, the PIO stated that has been given the charge of PIO only in the first week of October, 2014 and that he does not know why the same was not intimated to the appellant.

On a query by the Commission as to who was the PIO responsible to comply with the Commission’s order dt. 03.06.2013 & 12.03.2014, PIO stated that Shri D.P. Singh, who is now posted as A.O./ Caretaker in the Civic Centre Office and Shri Amit Gupta, now posted as Dy. A&C, A&C Dept., Civic Centre are the officers responsible for not complying with the Commission’s orders dt. 03.06.2013 & 12.03.2014 respectively.

Interim Decision:

Show cause notices are issued to Shri D.P. Singh, who is now posted as A.O./Caretaker in the Civic Centre Office and Shri Amit Gupta, now posted as Dy.A&C, A&C Dept., Civic Centre for deliberately obstructing the flow of information within prescribed period, under the RTI Act and not complying with the orders of the Commission dt. 03.06.2013 & 12.03.2014 respectively. PIOs are afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 24.12.2014 at 4:15 PM on which date they must present himself before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 17.12.2014 positively. The present PIO, Shri Deepak Rastogi, ADOV, South Delhi Municipal Corporation is also hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 24.12.2014 along with any other official(s) responsible for obstructing the flow of information in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Hearing is adjourned till 18 .12.2014 at 4:15 PM .

Show Cause Hearing u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act (27.01.2015)

The hearing was postponed, as date of hearing had been mentioned in the previous order, due to typographical error. The inconvenience to the parties is regretted. The respondents are present. Written Submission from Shri D.P Singh, Shri Amit Gupta and Shri Deepak Rastogi, have been received on 17.12.2014, 24.12.2014 and 27.01.2015 in the Commission. The same have been perused.

Shri D.P. Singh, in his written submission dt. 16.12.2014, stated that the appellant was informed, from time to time that the matter was pending investigation in the Vigilance Dept., due to which the information sought by the appellant regarding status/action taken on his complaint regarding some shops near the Sangam Cinema, R.K.Puram, New Delhi, being run by unauthorized occupants. He further stated that he was the PIO from 20.03.2013 to 13.03.2014. He stated that he had put up the order of the Commission dt. 12.03.2014 to Shri Amit Gupta, including the relevant files, for compliance of the said order.

Shri Amit Gupta, in his written submission dt. 15.12.2014, stated that he was posted as AC(Vig.) in the last week of March, 2014. He stated that a reminder was made to the DC from of the concerned zone Dir.(Vig.) requesting him to forward the requisite information. On receipt of the same, a detailed report was compiled for personal consideration of the higher authorities and in a meeting, held on 25.06.2014, it was decided that the matter be referred back to the Zonal office for consideration as per existing policy. Shri Amit Gupta stated that a shadow file of the entire case was forwarded to the Zonal Office for further action and that the appellant was intimated in this regard. On query by the Commission as to when was the entire case file transferred to the Zonal Office, the respondent was unable to state the exact date, however, he urged that the entire case file was transferred to the Zonal Office. On query by the Commission as to whether he is aware that the respondents from South Zone, Zonal ffice had stated that the said case file may not have received in the dept., Shri Amit Gupta stated that the officials, who appeared on behalf of South Zone, misled the Commission by not providing the actual facts. He stated that the same is untrue. Shri Deepak Rasogi, who is the present PIO/ADOV, in his submission dt. 24.10.2014, reiterated the stand taken by the respondents. He further clarified that the entire case file was sent to DC/SZ vide diary no. 861/ADOV dt. 19.08.2014 and that the appellant was informed accordingly. He urged that since the case was sent to the Zonal Office, there was no further information to be provided by the Vigilance Dept. He stated the respondents present on 16.10.2014 from the South Zone Office misled the Commission by stating that they are not aware whether the case file was received in the office or not. Further, he stated that he was appointed as the PIO/ADOV only in the last week of September, 2014.

Interim Decision:

After hearing the parties, the Commission finds that Shri D.P. Singh, who was the CPIO on 03.06.2013 when the Commission directed him to provide the information to the appellant regarding action taken by the Vigilance dept. on complaints filed by him, merely stated that the said complaints are still under investigation vide letter dt. 18.07.2013. The Commission finds that no documents /record was provided to the appellant regarding the status of enquiry. Stating simply that the investigation is pending is no justification of invoking Section 8(1)(h). The appellant has a right to know the action taken on the complaints filed by him and the same was infringed when Shri D.P. Singh did not provide the information, as sought, to the appellant. Shri D.P. Singh has re-iterated that he had informed the appellant regarding the pending investigation. Further, in the next hearing before this Bench on 12.03.2014, for the non-compliance of the order dt. 03.06.2013, Shri D.P. Singh has stated that he forwarded the order of the Commission dt. 12.03.2014 to Shri Amit Gupta, including the relevant files, for compliance of the said order. It is clear that Shri D.P. Singh did not think it fit to provide the relevant documents to the appellant regarding the complaint filed by him. Shri Amit Gupta, who became the PIO in the last week of March, 2014 and received the order dt. 12.03.2014 by the Commission, has stated that efforts were made to collect the information from the Zonal Office, when the case was pending in the Vigilance Dept. The respondent’s submission that there was no vigilance angle in the case, which is why the entire case file was sent to the Zonal office, also seems to be fleeting. The appellant filed the complaint in the year 2009 and it took 5 years for the Vigilance Dept. to find that there was no vigilance angle to it. This clearly shows the MCD’s lackadaisical approach and their professional acumen. Further, even Shri Amit Gupta, who was responsible for complying with the Commission’s order dt. 12.03.2014, did not do so. Even he did not think it fit to provide the relevant documents to the appellant regarding the complaint filed by him. The Commission observes that the present case displays abject apathy and lack of professional conduct on the part of the MCD authority. A man, the appellant in the instant case, files a complaint in the year 2009 against wrongful possession of shops by non-allottees and after an year, seeks the action taken on his complaint, by filing an RTI application. He is informed that investigation is pending. No document/record is provided to him regarding the stage of investigation or the terms of enquiry. For a period of 5 years, the complainant is informed that his investigation is pending. Thereafter, in a meeting amongst the higher authorities, it is decided that the case does not have a Vigilance angle and that the case be transferred to the concerned zone. The appellant has sought for action taken on his complaint and the same is not provided to him for a period of five years. The Commission finds the approach of MCD officials as brazen defiance of the responsibility reposed on them by the RTI regime. Therefore, the Commission finds this case to be a fit case for imposition of penalty on the concerned officials.

The Commission imposes a penalty of Rs 15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand only) u/s 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. on Shri D.P. Singh, PIO/Comm.Officer(Advt.), South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Rs 5,000 (rupees five thousand only) u/s 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. on Shri Amit Gupta, PIO/Dy.A&C (HQ), for violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, Show cause proceedings against Shri Deepak Rastogi, PIO/ADOV, are hereby dropped, as the Commission does not find any mala fide on his part.

This amount will be deducted from the salary of Shri D.P. Singh, PIO/Comm.Officer(Advt.), South Delhi Municipal Corporation, in three equal instalments @ Rs. 5000/- per month starting from February 2015. The total amount of Rs. 15,000/- will be remitted by May 2015. The amount will also be deducted from the salary of Shri Amit Gupta, PIO/Dy.A&C (HQ), South Delhi Municipal Corporation, in one instalment @ Rs. 5,000/-, from February 2015. The total amount of Rs. 5,000/- will be remitted by March 2015.

The FAA/Vigilance, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, is directed to recover the total amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the salaries of Shri D.P. Singh, PIO/Comm.Officer(Advt.) and Shri Amit Gupta, PIO/Dy.A&C (HQ) and remit the same through a Demand Draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Shanti Priye Beck, Joint Secretary (Admn.), Central Information Commission, Room No. 302, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. Further, the FAA is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Drawing & Disbursement Officer, under intimation to the Commission, for necessary action. Further, show cause notices are issued to Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, APIO/A.O., Shri Naresh Arya, L.I. and Shri Vinod Kumar, Z.S., South Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, for obstructing the flow of information within prescribed period, under the RTI Act. The present PIO, Shri Deepak Rastogi, ADOV, South Delhi Municipal Corporation is hereby directed to serve this show cause notice to Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, APIO/A.O., Shri Naresh Arya, L.I. and Shri Vinod Kumar, Z.S., South Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, on their present place of posting, under intimation to the Commission. PIOs are afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 05.03.2015 at 4:00 PM on which date they must present himself before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 26.02.2015 positively.

Hearing is adjourned till 05 .03.2015 at 4:00 PM .

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Kailash v. South Delhi Municipal Corp., in F. No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001935-YA