CIC: Record cannot be destroyed after RTI application is filed, even if it outlived the time prescribed under weeding out policy; if destroyed like that, it would invite the penalty under Section 20 - CIC: Explanation called from the public authority

Summary:

The Commission does not accept the claim of the respondents that the record is weeded out without showing how and when they followed Weeding out Policy, especially when an RTI application is pending in respect of that record. If the record is weeded out during the pendency of the RTI application, it will be a violation of RTI Act. Record cannot be destroyed after RTI application is filed, even if it outlived the time prescribed under weeding out policy and if destroyed like that, it would invite the penalty under Section 20 of RTI Act. The Public Authority has to explain the Commission whether they are following the provisions of the Public Records Act 1993 in destroying the old records, made any rules for their office, who is incharge of implementation of those rules, when the particular information sought by appellant was destroyed and what is the file noting about that file before it was weeded out. Commission directs to furnish file notings of removal of record to prove the date of destruction, and issues a Show Cause Notice for wrongfully claiming that record is weeded out.

The complainant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Devesh Trivedi, SO (Estt) and Mr. B.S. Rawat, Assistant Registrar, Delhi Technological University, Delhi. The complaint is converted as Second appeal at the request of the complainant.

FACTS

2. The complainant filed RTI application/complaint on 8.6.2012 seeking information through 4 points, with regard to appointment of Associate Professor. CPIO replied on 3.8.2012 that no such information available. Being aggrieved by the CPIO reply, the complainant preferred complaint before the Commission.

Decision:

3. Both the parties made their submissions. The respondent officers submitted that they have not received a copy of the second appeal from the complainant. They have been presented with a copy of the same during hearing. The Commission directs the PIO to furnish the complete response to point No.1 regarding the criteria for selection and point No.2, regarding marks secured by the complainant including the interview and point No.4, the minimum marks fixed for selection to the post of Assistant Professor, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

4. The Commission does not accept the claim of the respondents that the record is weeded out without showing their Weeding out Policy, especially when an RTI application is pending in respect of that record. If the record is weeded out during the pendency of the RTI application, they will be held responsible.

Section 6 of Public Records Act, 1993 says:

(1) The records officer shall be responsible for proper arrangement, maintenance and preservation of public records under his charge;

a) periodical review of all public records and weeding out public records of euphomeral value;

b) appraisal of public records which are more than twenty five years old in consultation with the National Archives of India or, as the case may be, the Archives of the Union territory with a view to retaining public records of permanent value;

c) destruction of public records in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed under subsection (1) of section 8; Section 8 (1) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, no public record shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of excepts in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

Section 9. Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

5. Record cannot be destroyed after RTI application is filed, even if it outlived the time prescribed under weeding out policy, and if destroyed like that, it would invite the penalty under Section 20 of RTI Act. The Public Authority has to explain the Commission whether they are following the above referred provisions of the law in destroying the old record, made any rules for their office, who is incharge of implementation of those rules, when the particular information sought by appellant was destroyed and what is the recording about that file before it was weeded out.

6. The Commission therefore directs the PIO to submit a written explanation as to the following:

a. Certified Copy of the Record retention schedule followed by the respondent authority.

b. Certified Copy of the file noting with respect to the appellants file which had been weeded out, along with the date of destruction

c. Certified copy of the department’s policy with regard to maintenance of records as per the Public records Act, 1993.

d. If the date of destruction is after the date of filing of RTI application, what action is initiated by the public authority against the concerned officer under Public Records Act and RTI Act.

The above should be submitted to the Commission within 3 weeks of the receipt of the Order and a copy of the same should also be supplied to the appellant.

7. The Commission also directs the PIO, Mr. B.S. Rawat, to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for making a wrong claim of weeding the record and for not furnishing the information to the complainant. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order along with above information as directed.

8. The Commission orders accordingly

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Ashok Kr. Dixit v. Delhi Technological University in File No.CIC/SA/C/2013/000013