Certified photocopies of Annual Reports of the Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment of the SAI - CIC: PIO directed to provide copies of as many Annual Reports as available with the SAI; show cause notice issued u/s 20 (1) for delay

Application seeking certified photocopies of Annual Reports of the Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment of the SAI was transferred u/s 6(3) to the “Chairperson, Sexual Harassment Committee of SAI & CPIO” with the request that the information sought be provided directly to the Appellant within the stipulated time of 30 days - PIO could not explain why the letter had been addressed only to the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Committee of SAI Headquarters, when separate sexual harassment committees had been formed at the Head Office and regional centres; Chairperson was not the designated CPIO - CIC: the PIO is directed to provide copies of as many Annual Reports of the Complaints Committees on Sexual Harassment of the SAI Head Office and regional centres; show cause notice issued for failure to provide information within prescribed time limit

Facts

According to the appeal, the Appellant addressed an RTI application on 12.4.2013 to Shri Sanjay Saraswat, Director (Personnel) and CPIO, Sports Authority of India (SAI), seeking certified photocopies of Annual Reports of the Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment of the SAI from 1.1.2005 till 31.3.2013. On 8.5.2013, Shri M. S. Bains, Director (Coord.), Chief Coordinating Officer/RTI transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the “Chairperson, Sexual Harassment Committee of SAI & CPIO” with the request that the information sought be provided directly to the Appellant within the stipulated time of 30 days. In this communication, Shri Bains also stated that the RTI application dated 12.4.2013 had been received in his office on 03.05.2013. There is no indication of where this application was in the interim period. Shri Bains endorsed a copy of the above letter to the Appellant, advising him to “conduct all further correspondence with the concerned CPIOs”. Not having received the information, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 18.05.2013. Not having received any reply from the FAA, he approached the CIC in second appeal-cum-complaint on 13.7.2013.

2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that he had still not received the information sought as per his RTI application. The representative of the Respondents placed before us a copy of the letter dated 16.07.2013, addressed by Shri Sanjay Saraswat, Director (Pers. & Cg.) to all the subordinate units of SAI, asking for copies of the annual reports sought vide the RTI application. He called for the information by 26.7.2013 for its further transmission. He also endorsed a copy of the above letter to the Appellant, stating that separate Sexual Harassment Committees had been formed for the Head Office and Regional Centres and information was being sought from all concerned. In response to our query, the representative of the Respondents clarified that the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Committee of the SAI Headquarters, to whom the Chief Coordinating Officer, RTI had sent the RTI application, vide his letter dated 8.5.2013, was not a designated CPIO. She did not explain why this letter had been addressed only to the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Committee of SAI Headquarters, when separate sexual harassment committees had been formed at the Head Office and regional centres.

3. We note that the information sought vide the RTI application has still not been provided. In this context, we also note that the CPIO is required to provide only such information in response to an RTI application, as is available on the records of the Public Authority at the time of responding to an RTI application. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide copies of as many Annual Reports of the Complaints Committees on Sexual Harassment of the SAI Head Office and regional centres, for the period 1.1.2005 to 31.3.2013, as are available on the records of the SAI Head Office and regional centres, to the Appellant within 21 days of the receipt of this order.

4. We now come to the issue of delay in providing information in contravention of the time frame laid down in the RTI Act. There is nothing to explain as to what was done with the RTI application (the Appellant claims that it was delivered on 15.4.2013 to SAI), which was addressed to Shri Sanjay Sarswat Director (Personnel) and CPIO, till 08.05.2013, when it was first acted upon by the Chief Coordinating Officer, RTI. It is also not clear why the Chief Coordinating Officer, RTI forwarded the application to the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Committee only at the Head Office and not to regional centres. It is further not clear as to why he advised the Appellant to correspond directly with the Chairperson, Sexual Harassment Committee of SAI Head Office, even though this functionary was not a designated CPIO, as indicated by the representative of the Respondents, who attended the hearing. This representative did not give us any explanation for failure of the Respondents to provide the information in time to the Appellant. After carefully considering the facts of the case and the submissions made before us, we have come to the conclusion that Shri M.S.Bains, Chief Coordinating Officer, RTI and Shri Sanjay Saraswat, Director (Personnel) and CPIO must explain why they failed to provide the information in time to the Appellant. We, therefore, direct Shri M. S. Bains, Chief Coordinating Officer, RTI and Shri Sanjay Saraswat, Director (Personnel) and CPIO to show cause why they should not be penalized in terms of the provisions of sub section 1 of section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 for their failure to provide information to the Appellant within the time frame laid down in the said Act. They are directed to appear before us on 19 th March, 2014 at 3.15 p.m. in the Commission’s office and give their explanation. Their written submission, if any, should reach the Commission’s office by 12.3.2014.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sharat Sabharwal)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Dr. Sajib Kumar Nandi v. Sports Authority of India in File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001529/SH