CIC: the reply of PIO does not explain why he had incorrectly denied information - explanation that he was “overburdened” due to heavy rush of the receipts, files etc. does not absolve him from his statutory duty - penalty of Rs. 25, 000 imposed u/s 20(1)

ORDER

The Commission through its order dated 22.10.2013 had directed that a show cause notice be issued to Shri S.K. Jain, CPIO & Director (S) asking him to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him 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 for providing incorrect and incomplete reply to the Appellant in respect of his RTI application dated 29.10.2012.

2. A show cause notice dated 05.11.2013 was accordingly issued to Shri S.K.Jain, the then CPIO & Director (S), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi—presently posted as Director (Provisioning), PM Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

3. Shri S.K. Jain accordingly submitted his reply dated 18.11.2013 (to show cause notice) to the Commission wherein he has, interalia, explained as follows: “…..I was working as Director (Services) and was looking after the cadre management of IAS/IPS of AGMU Cadre and DANICS and DANIPS. It would be relevant to mention here that I was overburdened due to heavy rush of the receipts, files, etc. The issues dealt in UT Division are not only varied but large in nature and involves personal interaction with officers, administration of UT/State Governments, liaison with DoP&T, Law Ministry, CVC etc. apart from the routine work. The Commission may appreciate that with only one dealing hand in the UTSI Section and no Under Secretary for, the handling of task became more difficult. I had been putting efforts to the best of my ability to dispose off the maximum receipts including RTI application, as early as possible. The RTI application of Sh Kirti Azad was replied by me as CPIO within time limit without any intention or motto which is against the spirit of RTI Act, 2005.Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that on receipt of a notice dated 12.09.2013 issued by Hon’ble Commission I attend the hearing on24.09.2013 at 11:30 Hrs. and in compliance of oral directions of Hon’ble CIC given during the said hearing on 24.09.2013, I took immediate measures to prepare and compile the information which otherwise was not maintained in the Section and provided it to the applicant vide this Ministry’s letter dated 11.10.2013…”

4. He has thus requested to drop the penalty proceeding initiated against him.

5. The Commission notes that the above reply of Shri S.K. Jain, the then CPIO does not explain why he had denied the information to the Appellant by giving incorrect reply to him. The Appellant in his RTI application dated 29.10.2012 had sought factual information which could have easily been provided to him by the then CPIO by referring to the concerned file(s). He however chose not to do so, and instead summarily rejected the whole request of the Appellant on the ground that “reply to queries are not covered under RTI Act, 2005.” His explanation that he was “overburdened” due to heavy rush of the receipts, files etc. does not absolve him from his statutory duty to provide correct and complete information to the information seeker. It is thus evident that Shri S.K. Jain in the instant case had failed to discharge his statutory duties with ‘due care’ and ‘attention’, thereby malafidely denied the information to the Appellant by knowingly giving incorrect reply to him. He is thus liable for penalty at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day (subject to maximum Rs. 25,000/) as per subsection (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act. In this case the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application dated29.10.2012 has been provided to him by the CPIO vide his letter dated 11.10.2013after the Commission’s order. Thus the delay caused by the then CPIO in this matter is of more than 10 months warranting the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/on him.

6. In view of the above, the Commission, by the power vested in it 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, hereby imposes a penalty of Rs. 25, 000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only on Shri S.K. Jain, the then CPIO and Director (Services), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi for malafidely denying the information to the Appellant by knowingly giving incorrect reply to him.

7. The head of the public authority viz., Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs is accordingly hereby directed to recover the above amount of penalty (of Rs.25,000/-) in five monthly installments, starting from March, 2014, from the pay bills of Shri S.K. Jain, the then CPIO and Director (Services), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and remit the same to the Commission by way of Demand Draft in favour of PAO, CAT, New Delhi. The first installment of penalty should reach the Commission by or before April 15, 2014.

8. Matter is disposed of with the above directions.

(Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Kirti Azad v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000104