CIC - PIO has discussed the unholy motives of applicant and the background thereof; nowhere the cause of the delay in furnishing the information or the reason for providing incomplete and inaccurate information provided - penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed
23 Jan, 2014Information sought in RTI dated 25/11/2011:
1. What was the reason for attaching Grameen Dak Sevak Mr. Manoj Tripathi to Satna HO.
2. Why only Mr. Manoj Tripathi was sent to Karhi Blagi after 04 years whereas other 06 people are still working at HO.
3. Provide reason for putting off Mr. Manoj Tripathi even when he was on medical.
4. Copies of communications between Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Dak Sahayak and Postmaster with respect to Mr. Manoj Tripathi.
5. Date on which inspection of head office Satna was done by Superintendent of Post Offices.
Information sought in RTI dated 21/11/2011:
1- Provide name and place of present posting of all the employees passed in the Rewa Division Saving Bank Incentive Examination.
2- Name of the employees working at HO Satna & Rewa Saving Accounts Section as Assistant RD Ledger and Assistant RD counter from 2009 to till date.
3- Copy of rules related to tenure of Assistant RD Ledger and Assistant RD counter at Saving Accounts Section at HO.
Information sought in RTI dated 11/11/2011:
1. What is the tenure of Dak Asstt. for Head Post Office, Rewa Division?
2. Provide name of the employees who have been working in HO Rewa Division more than 04 years. Provide date and complete details.
3. Provide details of all (temporary & permanent) the Jan Sapark Nirikshaks working at Satna Post Office alongwith their dates.
4. Provide following information related to appointment of Shakha Dakpal: (a) Date & copy of advertisement and last date of receiving the application. (b) Date of appointment of shakha dakpal and copy of appointment orders and notesheets. (c) The percentile at matric level examination of selected candidates. (d) Basis of appointment and directions/rules issued by the department.
Information sought in RTI dated 21/11/2011:
1- How many offices of Rewa Division and sub offices have increased house rent during the period 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and 2011-2012? Provide copy of note sheets and complete documents.
2- Allowances of how many Grameen Dak Sewaks have been increased during the period 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, provide copy of notesheets and work load.
3- What is the reason for taking services of Dak Sahayak Mr. Mool Chand Harijan at Satna HO, whereas he was sent to Jaso at Govt. expenses.
Information sought in RTI dated 01/11/2011:
1- Copy of inquiry report prepared by Assistant Superintendent Satna dated 24/10/2011 and 31/10/2011 and copy of statement of Mr. Jitender Kumar alongwith complete related documents.
2- Details of furniture, computer and other equipments purchased by Rewa Division during the period 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Kindly provide name of company, model, price etc.
3- Complete details of tenure and posting of all Dak Assistants since their appointments.
4- Strength of Dak Assistants in Rewa Division and details of their posting regular and deputation both.
Information sought in RTI dated 12/11/2011:
1- Copy of notesheets and orders related to transfer of Dak Assistants and Postmasters for the period 2009-2010, 2010-2011. 2- Dates on which Mr. Samir Khan and D. K. Singh Dak Assistants visited the Head Office Satna with Superintendent Hyderi. Provide complete details with reasons.
Information sought in RTI dated 28/11/2011:
1- From which date Mr. Dinesh Kumar Upadhayay, Dak Assistants Satna HO is working on deputation at Birla.
2- Reasons for not appointing Senior Officer as Up-Dakpal at LSG Birla Sub-Post Office.
3- From which dates to which date the post of Up-Dakpal Birla Vikas was vacant for the last 06 years, provide reasons.
4- For which period Mr. Dinesh Kumar Upadhayay was posted as Up-dakpal.
Information sought in RTI dated 08/12/2011:
1- Copy of inquiry report conducted by Assistant Superintendent-I Satna and Dak Inspector-II Satna alongwith the notesheets related to embezzlement alleged against Mr. Sabir Khan, Dak Assistants.
2- Copies of notesheets and calculation sheets related to increase of Rent of Post Office Semariya and Nadan.
3- Details of expenditure incurred by the department for organizing fair/mela at Mehar Chowk on 07/09/2011. Copies of bill, vouchers etc may also be provided.
Information sought in RTI dated 19/12/2011: The appellant had sought following information related to a news paper report published on 08/10/2010 about corruption at Rewa Division by Superintendent of Post Offices:
1- Provide complete details of enquiry and results on the complaint.
2- Provide the tenure of Mr. Rajnish Tiwari Dak Assistant as Postal Inspector Maihar and Postal Inspector Rewa.
3- Mr. Rajnish Tiwari who has crossed 40 years of age and still working as Postal Inspector Rewa-II, provide a copy of order, notesheets etc. in this regard.
Information sought in RTI dated 23/11/2011:
1- How many retired officers have been appointed as inquiry officer for departmental inquiry by Mohammad Iqbal Hyderi, provide complete details alongwith notesheets.
2- Provide name and complete address of the inquiry officer. 3- Provide complete details of allowances TA/DA given to inquiry officers. Provide complete details with note sheets.
Information sought in RTI dated 28/11/2011:
1. How many times Circle Secretary Mr. Mahendra Singh has come to office in last two years and on which dates he met Director (Postal) and APMG (Staff).
2. If Mahendra Singh was at Bhopal then could he granted special leave from Rewa .
3. What is the eligibility of Mr. Mahendra Singh to grant leave as Secretary because of union designatory.
4. Copy of general register of July 2011 of the Post Office where Mr. Mahendra Singh is posted. 5. Copy of order in which Mr. Mahendra Singh was levied a penalty of Rs.400/-.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has not given satisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Dixit through VC 09827397119
Respondent: Mr. R M Jain CPIO through VC 9406914269
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001460 The appellant stated that he has not been provided the information requested under query 1 to 4 of his RTI application dated 25/11/2011 and the information relating to query 5 was provided late. The CPIO explained that at the relevant time the matter was under investigation and exemption was claimed under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act., however, the investigation is now concluded and the information will be provided. As regards the delay he explained that the information was provided as directed by the FAA vide order dated 13/01/2012
Decision notice: As agreed by the CPIO he should provide the information as above to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001461 The appellant stated that the information has been received but only after the FAA passed his order dated 13/01/2012. The CPIO explained that the then CPIO Shri M.I. Hyderi (presently SPO Ratlam) had claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, however, the information was provided immediately on receipt of the FAA’s order.
Decision notice: The information has been provided to the appellant.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001462 The appellant stated that inspite of FAA’s order dated 16/01/2012 the information requested under query 2 was denied claiming that the same did not exist in material form and the remaining information is yet to be provided. The CPIO stated that he will provide the information.
Decision notice: As stated by the CPIO he should provide the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 11/11/2011 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001463 The appellant stated that the information was provided after the mandatory period of 30 days and charging a fee of Rs.4/- in violation of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. Decision notice: The information has been provided to the appellant.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001464 The appellant stated that only partial information was provided and that too after the mandatory period of 30 days and levying a fee of Rs.4/- in violation of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. He further stated that information under query 3 & 4 is yet to be provided. The CPIO stated that the information requested in query 3 is voluminous, however, the list of duties of Dak Assistants and the strength of Dak Assistants in Rewa division will be provided. The appellant agreed.
Decision notice: As stated by the CPIO he should provide the information as above to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001465 The appellant stated that the information requested in query 1 has not been provided by the then CPIO who demanded a fee of Rs.16/- for supply of photocopies in violation of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. He further stated that in reply to query 2 he has been informed that Mr. Samir Khan and Mr. D. K. Singh had visited Satna only on two occasions whereas each time Mr. Hyderi visited Satna both the officers accompanied him. The CPIO stated that he will go through the records and provide the correct information to the appellant.
Decision notice: The CPIO is directed to provide the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 12/11/2011, as available on record, free of cost, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001469 The appellant stated that he has not been provided the information as the respondent have claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act which is incorrect as he has not asked for any personal details. The CPIO stated that he will go through the records and provide the information.
Decision notice: As agreed by the CPIO he should provide the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 28/11/2011 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001470 The CPIO stated that the period for which the information was being sought by the appellant under query 1 & 2 was not clear and the copies of the vouchers sought under query 3 had been sent to the audit office and hence the information could not be provided. The appellant stated Mr. Sabir Khan was involved in only one embezzlement in the year 2009-10 and the note sheets requested under query 2 were for the period 2010-11 and the respondent should obtain the vouchers from the audit department and provide him the information. The CPIO stated that he will go through the records and provide the information.
Decision notice: As agreed by the CPIO he should go through the records and provide the information as above to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001471 The appellant stated that he has not been provided the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act which is incorrect. The CPIO stated that he will go through the records and provide the information.
Decision notice: As agreed by the CPIO he should provide the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application 19/12/2011 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001472 The appellant stated that the information has not been provided as the respondent have claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; & (j) of the RTI Act which is incorrect. The CPIO stated that he will go through the records and provide the information.
Decision notice: As agreed by the CPIO he should provide the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 23/11/2011 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001474 The appellant stated that he has not been provided the information requested query 2 & 5 of his RTI application dated 28/11/2011. He explained that Mr. Mahendra Singh had come to Rewa on special leave and a penalty of Rs.400/- was levied on him based on the enquiry report of Mr. A K Jain, Asst. Supdtt. Rewa and he wants the relevant information. The CPIO stated that the period for which the information is needed for Mr. Mahendra Singh was not specified and the copy of the court order requested in item 5 is not available on record. The appellant stated that Mr. Mahendra Singh took over as Secretary during the year 2009-10 and the information is needed till the date of his RTI application.
Decision notice: The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information requested by the appellant in query 2 of this RTI application dated 28/11/2011 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this information.
Show Cause Notice to Mr. M I Hyderi the then CPIO Rewa: By not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the then CPIO Mr. M.I. Hyderi (presently SPO Ratlam) has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions 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. of the RTI Act. However, before imposing any such penalty, we would like to give an opportunity to him to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for not providing the complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. Accordingly, we direct Mr. M I Hyderi the then CPIO, who had received the appellant’s aforementioned RTI applications, to submit his written explanation as aforesaid latest by 31/10/2013 and also personally appear before the Commission through videoconferencing on 19/11/2013 at 03.00 PM. In case he fails to appear/provide any satisfactory reply the Commission will proceed to impose penalty on him. If there is/are other person(s) responsible for not providing the complete, correct and timely information to the Appellant the CPIO is directed to inform such person(s) of the show cause hearing and direct him/them to also appear before the Commission along with his/their written explanation(s). If no other responsible person(s) is/are brought by the concerned CPIO asked to show cause, it will be presumed that he is the responsible person. The FAA/DPS Indore should ensure that Mr. M I Hyderi the then CPIO Rewa (presently SPO Ratlam) submits his written explanation in time and also appears before the Commission as aforesaid without fail.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 19/11/2013: The following were present
Respondent: Mr. M I Hyderi SSPO Ratlam (M: 09406914262) through VC & Mr. R M Jain CPIO Rewa through VC
The CPIO, Rewa stated that the information as directed by the Commission in its above order dated 30/09/2013 has been provided to the appellant. Mr. M I Hyderi the then CPIO Rewa appeared before the Commission and stated that he has forwarded his written explanation in the matter vide letter dated 29/10/2013. In his written submission dated 29.10.2013 Mr. M I Hyderi has contended that the RTI applications in this case were not filed to seek information but this is a case of misuse of the RTI Act with the intent to harass the CPIO. The CPIO has further stated that the applicant with malafide intent has used the RTI applications to blackmail and pressurize the CPIO. Mr. Hyderi has stated that the entire process of filing multiple RTI applications had begun with the “putting off” of Sh. Manoj Tripathi, an associate of the appellant, on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. As per the CPIO, the real intent of the applicant was to coerce him in view of the laying off of Sh. Manoj Tripathi. The CPIO has placed on record the various complaints including police complaints filed against Manoj Tripathi, the associate of the applicant, for his acts of blackmailing, threatening his superior officers with dire consequences for having laid him off. The CPIO has stated that in the same sequence of exerting pressure on the officials, the applicant and his associate had filed 11 RTI applications between 01.11.2011 to 19.12.2011. Furthermore, the CPIO has submitted that the applicant with a vindictive plan and criminal bent of mind had concealed the fact that RTI application dated 23.11.2011 was in fact not filed by the applicant but by Manoj Tripathi. Moreover, the CPIO has submitted that many queries and the information sought are vague and not clearly specified. Thus, the CPIO concluded that the applicant with his malicious and criminal intent had not filed the RTI applications for procuring information for any bona fide public interest but only to harass, blackmail and pressurize the CPIO and cause mental agony.
Decision Notice:
It is observed by the Commission that the erstwhile CPIO, Mr. Hyderi has discussed the unholy motives of the applicant and the background thereof. However, nowhere has the CPIO attempted to explain the cause of the delay in furnishing of the information or the reason for providing incomplete and in some instances inaccurate information. There have been more than one instance when the CPIO has either claimed exemption from disclosure of the information on some incorrect ground [CIC/BS/A/2012/001460] or simply delayed furnishing of the information on some pretext or the other as in the following cases [CIC/BS/A/2012/001462, CIC/BS/A/2012/001464, CIC/BS/A/2012/001465, CIC/BS/A/2012/001469, CIC/BS/A/2012/001470]. Since the cause of such delays or latches could not be understood from the available records, hence during the last hearing on 30.09.2013, the Commission had granted an opportunity to the CPIO to explain the same. However, instead of utilizing the opportunity in explaining the delays, latches and lacunae on his part, the CPIO has simply narrated the ill intentions of the applicant and the cause thereof. The written submissions are a narration of the applicant’s alleged ill intentions but do not serve any purpose in explaining the cause of failure of service by the CPIO. The Commission, therefore, does not find the explanation reasonable because ill motive, if at all, of the applicant does not justify the failure to furnish complete, correct and timely information by the CPIO. In fact the CPIO has failed to discharge his obligations under the RTI Act. Thus, the Commission finds it a fit case for imposing the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the CPIO for his failure to establish any reasonable cause for not furnishing complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. Accordingly, the FAA/Director Postal Services, Indore is directed to ensure that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- is deducted from the salary of Mr. M.I. Hyderi (presently SSPO Ratlam) in five equal installments of Rs. 5000/- each and remit the same by demand draft or 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 & Nodal CPIO of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The matter is disposed of on the above terms.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Dixit v. Department of Post in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001460+001461+001462+001463+001464+001465+001469+001470+00171+001472+001474/4006