Kerala Cadre Forest Service Officer sought grounds for curtailment of deputation tenure - Appellant: If the information sought was given timely, he could have raised his grievance before an appropriate authority - CIC: SCN for penalty to PIO and FAA

A Kerala Cadre Forest Service Officer sought grounds for curtailment of deputation tenure and pre-mature repatriation - Appellant: If the information sought was given within the timeline, he could have raised his grievance before an appropriate authority: Due to lapse of time, damaged done to him may not be cured - CIC: Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the FAA in the capacity of deemed PIO, are directed to show cause as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed against each of them

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2022 seeking the following information:

“The applicant, I, Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS, a member of All India Services of Kerala Cadre is taking care of Rehabilitation of Multiple Disabilities of my daughters in the support set up in the Jharkhand State since, Dec.2012. As provisioned in O.M. No. 42011/3/2014- Estt.(Res.), dated-06.06.2014 of the DoPT, in accordance with the direction of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC), Govt. of India vide OM No. 37/33/2012-EO(SM-I),dated- 31.05.2018, the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), Govt. of India vide it's Order No. 22/05/2017 EO(SMI), DoPT, dated-26.10.2018 approved my appointment as Assistant Director General (ADG) for a period of 5 years by temporarily downgrading the post of DDG, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi initially for a period of 2 years (further extendable on year to year basis), vice Ms. Nandana Munshi, IA&AS (1991), seek the following information’s, under RTI Act.2005 and to the best of his knowledge, the required information is pertaining to the Human Resource Division of the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi.

I. Furnish certified copy of the Note sheets of the File and Order/O.M./Notification of the competent authority of UIDAI, communicating/conveying its concurrence for appointment of Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005) at UIDAI.

II. Furnish the certified copy of the office orders or notifications of the UIDAI, assigning the roles and responsibilities to Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005) in accordance with the Order No. 22/05/2017 EO(SM-I), DoPT, dated-26.10.2018, upon his joining at UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi w.e.f.- 01.11.2018.

III. Furnish certified copy of all the Office Orders of the UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi, communicated to the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi (for the period from-01.11.2018 to 18.08.2022) of Work Allocation to Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005), ADG/Director, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi.

IV. Furnish certified copy of Report communicated to the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi by the DDG, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi who is/were Reporting/Controlling Authority w.r.t. Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005), ADG/Director for breach of any regulation of the Authority or negligence, inefficiency in discharge of the assigned duties or violations of any of the provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and/or Unique Identification Authority of India (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 2020 during the period of his working at UIDAI w.e.f. 01.11.2018 till date.

V. Furnish certified copy of the show-cause notice issued or explanation called for, if any w.r.t. reported (by the Reporting/Controlling Authority) breach of any regulation of the Authority or negligence, inefficiency in discharge of the assigned duties or violations of any of the provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and/or Unique Identification Authority of India (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 2020 by Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS, Director, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi during the period of his working at UIDAI w.e.f. 01.11.2018 till date.

VI. Furnish certified copy of the order of authorization for regulation of deputation tenure of a member of the All India Services appointed/deputed at UIDAI vide appointment order of the Competent Authority (ACC) as per the Deputation Guidelines for All India Service officers vide F. No. 14017/33/2005-AIS (II)(Pt.1), dated-28.11.2007 of the Govt. of India, DoPT.

VII. Furnish certified copy of Note sheet of the file and letter/Office Memorandum, of the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi communicated, if any, as per the procedure laid down by the DoPT i.r.o. the officers of All India Services working under the Government of India and organizations under the Government of India and recommending with Administrative Exigencies/grounds for curtailment of deputation tenure and pre-mature repatriation of the services of Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala2005), ADG /Director, UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi.

VIII. Furnish certified copy of Order/ Office Memorandum of Constitution/Establishment of DDG Secretariat at UIDAI, Regional Office, Ranchi and Sanctioned strength of staffs in the said DDG Secretariat. at Ranchi.”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 21.09.2022 stating as under:

“1. Copy of notification dated 29.04.2019 and copy of note sheet are attached as Annexure ‘A’ & ‘B’ respectively.

2. Copy of work allocation dated 05.11.2018 is attached as Annexure ‘C’.

3. Same as para 2 above.

4. Information cannot be provided under section 8(h) of RTI Act 2005.

5. No such documents is available with UIDAI Headquarters.

6. Copy of ACC order dated 26.10.2018 is attached as Annexure ‘D’.

7. Copy of note sheet and letter to DoPT dated 14.07.2022 are attached as Annexure ‘E’ & ‘F’ respectively.

 8. No such documents is available with UIDAI Headquarters.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 14.11.2022, stated that information sought with respect to point nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 8 of the RTI application, as available in the records with UIDAI Headquarter, have been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 22.08.2022. Besides, the FAA informed that the relevant pages of note sheet with regard to information sought on point no. 7, has also been provided by the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, Director (HR Div.) & CPIO UIDAI along with Shri B. Gupta, UIDAI present in person.

The Appellant while reiterating the contents of instant appeal and RTI application as mentioned above, submitted that he is aggrieved by the fact that desired information against point nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application were not provided deliberately with mala fide intent causing harm to him.

The appellant, in respect of point no. 4 of the RTI application submitted that the CPIO had denied the information citing exception of Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005 which was also upheld by the FAA and that too without assigning any material reasons.

Against point no. 7 of the RTI application, the appellant pleaded that the respondent had provided partial documents marked as Annexure "E" and "F". He informed that from the said Annexure "E" the applicant for the first time came to know, that action has been initiated and completed at UIDAI HQ, HR Division as per the report of Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, ITS, DDG, RO, Ranchi. Further from the 2-4 of the said Annexure "F", the appellant came to know that UIDAI, HR Division requested DoP&T for issuance of necessary relieving orders for premature repatriation of Shri KDP Sahu, Director, UIDAI, RO Ranchi based on the approval sought and obtained from the Hon'ble Minister of Electronics & Information Technology.

The appellant further submitted that as per the partially provided note sheet furnished in reply to query No. 7 it is evident that without giving any notice of the complain/allegation brought by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, DDG, UIDAI, RO, Ranchi, extreme coercive steps has been taken and concluded for premature repatriation of the applicant from the post of Director/ADG UIDAI RO thereby grossly violating the principal of natural justice.

The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have provided point-wise reply/information as per the records available with them vide letter dated 21.09.2022. They further submitted that since, the appellant is satisfied with the information/documents provided on point nos., 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 8 of the RTI application, they are restricting their argument on point nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application only. They argued that as the case of applicant's premature repatriation was under examination and had not reached finality, hence, information sought on point no. 4 of the RTI application was denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.

Against point no. 7, the respondent informed that the appellant sought certified copy of Note Sheet of the file for curtailment of deputation tenure and pre-mature repatriation of the services. They further stated that they were under impression that Note#1 to note#16 was not related to the information sought by appellant, therefore, the same was not furnished. However, they agreed to provide the complete information on point no. 7 of the RTI application.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts, perusal of records and hearing both the parties noted that the respondent have provided point-wise information/reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.09.2022. The appellant during the hearing expressed his satisfaction over the information provided by the respondent on the all the points except on point nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application.

Perusal of the records revealed that the respondent had denied the information sought on point no. 4 of the RTI application under Section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act. The respondent failed to explain as to how the exemption claimed by them would apply in this case. Plain reading of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, states that anything which would hamper and interfere with procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold back the progress of investigation, apprehension of offenders or prosecution of offenders. However, the impediment, if alleged, must be actual and not make belief and a camouflage to deny information.

In B.S. Mathur vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court, (2011) 125 DRJ 508, High Court of Delhi has made the following observations:

19. ……The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards 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; RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to 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; RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation. Even if one went by the interpretation placed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7930 of 2009 [Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) v. CIC, decision dated 30th November 2009] that the word "impede" would "mean anything which would hamper and interfere with the procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold back the progress of investigation", it has still to be demonstrated by the public authority that the information if disclosed would indeed "hamper" or "interfere" with the investigation, which in this case is the second enquiry.”

It may be noted that no such justification has been provided by the Respondent public authority while denying information in the instant case, which arise out of Appellant’s own service matter. The concerned FAA has also failed to discharge his duty in the spirit of RTI Act blindly endorsing the reply of the CPIO without studying the facts of the case in hand and thereby, the FAA has not passed speaking order.

In addition to the above, the respondent had also not provided complete information against point no. 7 of the RTI application. Though, during the course of hearing, they expressed their preparedness to provide the complete information on point no. 7 along with all the annexures. It is pertinent to mention that information as sought by the appellant in the aforesaid RTI application should have been provided within the time frame. As per the submission of the appellant, if the information sought was given within the timeline, he could have raised his grievance before an appropriate authority. But due to lapse of time, damaged done to him may not be cured. The Commission observes that reply given by the respondent is evasive, misleading and incomplete.

In view of the above, Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, the FAA in the capacity of deemed PIO are directed to show cause as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the information within the stipulated time. The present CPIO is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the FAA and secure their attendance on the next date of hearing and also submit their written explanations. All the written explanations of the CPIO & the FAA (deemed CPIO) must reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised information on point no. 4 and 7 of the RTI application, within three weeks’ time from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu v. Unique Identification Authority of India, File No: CIC/NITIA/A/2022/669319; Date of Decision: 11-01-2024