CIC: The RTI Application has been mechanically, without application of mind, transferred to PDDE, Pune by the PIO, DGDE, Delhi - CIC: The PIO, DGDE directed to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against him u/S 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act
9 Jan, 2020Information sought:
The Complainant sought details of action taken procedure on the letter dated 13.01.2018.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant:
Present and assisted by P.D. Aggarwal through VC. Respondent: Shasank Borawar, UDC & CPIO, O/o Principal Director, Defence Estate, Pune present through VC
Rep. of Complainant stated that he has not received any reply from the CPIO till date. He further stated that he has some outstanding grievance which can be addressed by DEO, Sagar. He furthermore stated that despite writing letters to them as well as to their Controlling Authorities, PDDE, Pune and DGDE, Delhi, no action has been taken. Finally he sent a representation on his pending grievance to DGDE, New Delhi on 13.1.2018 by registered post. He further expressed that the present RTI Application was filed in the office of DGDE, New Delhi for knowing about the action taken on his representation dated 13.1.2018.
CPIO submitted that he has not received any RTI Application of the Appellant on transfer from DGDE, New Delhi. He further submitted that in case the Appellant sends him the original Application dated 13.01.2018 which pertained to Defence Estates Office, Sagar, necessary action will be initiated.
Decision
Commission has gone through the case records and observes that the RTI Application has been mechanically, without application of mind, transferred to PDDE, Pune by CPIO, DGDE, New Delhi. He was required to inform the Complainant on action taken on his representation dated 13.01.2018 sent to them by registered post.
In view of the above, Commission finds that the action and conduct of the CPIO, DGDE, Delhi in transferring the RTI Application without application of mind amounts to blocking of information. The CPIO, DGDE, Delhi is hereby directed to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against 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. and 20(2) 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 and persistently, failed 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. 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 and persistently, failed 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act for failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act.
If the onus of not providing information lies with the “then CPIO”, the present CPIO shall serve a copy of this decision to the then CPIO and the then CPIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him/her 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. and 20(2) 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 and persistently, failed 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. 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 and persistently, failed 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act.
The present CPIO is directed to ensure that under all circumstances, written submissions of the delinquent CPIO should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action may be initiated against the concerned CPIO as well as the present CPIO.
Commission further directs Shasank Borawar, UDC & CPIO to file an appropriate affidavit stating that the instant RTI Application which has been transferred to CPIO, PDDE, Pune by CPIO, DGDE, New Delhi vide letter No. 701/RTI/DE/2018 dated 13.03.2018 has not been received in their office. The said affidavit should be sent by Shasank Borawar, UDC & CPIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ashfak Hussain v. CPIO, O/o Principal Director, Defence Estate and CPIO O/o DGDE, Raksha Sampada Bhawan in File No: CIC/IARMY/C/2018/135978, Date of Decision: 05/12/2019