PIO did not attend the hearing though the notice was duly served - The representative seemed poorly prepared and was unable to provide proper replies to the queries - CIC: The casual approach of the PIO was viewed seriously and a last opportunity given

Information Sought:

 The appellant has sought the following information in respect Sh. Chetany Gautam, District Manager Etah:

1. Copy of his appointment letter.

2. Copy of his monthly salary slip.

3. Copy of the appreciation letters given by the department to him.

4. Copy of the letters related to his removal from service.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he received a reply dated 09.04.2018 vide which information was refused u/s 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. of the RTI Act. He further submitted that a further reply was received vide letter dated 12.06.2018 in which the appellant was asked to state the purpose for which the information was being sought and also to mention the relationship of the appellant with Mr Chetany Gautam. He summed up stating that he vide letter dated 16.07.2018 objected to the queries of the CPIO asking him for reasons for asking for the information stating it to be in contravention of the RTI Act.

The CPIO was not present despite duly served notice on 16.11.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED365281665IN and thus his explanation on the points raised by the appellant could not be taken during the hearing. On a query by the Commission, the appellant submitted that Mr Chetany Gautam is his brother and he had sought information on his behalf. Hence, the CPIO’s action in denying information u/s 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. of the RTI Act without following the Sec 11 procedure is not maintainable and the reply should be set aside.

Observations:

 Based on the above averments of the appellant, the Commission finds that the CPIO is not present to contest the appellant’s submissions. On a perusal of the replies dated 09.04.2018 and 12.06.2018 it is noted that the reply was given casually by the concerned officer by merely putting initials and without mentioning the name and designation of the CPIO or PIO. It is noted that the CSC are not following the RTI Act in letter and spirit.

Interim Decision:

The CPIO’s conduct in denying the information without ensuring that Sec 11 procedure is followed, asking the appellant to give reasons for seeking the information amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the respondent CSC was absent during the hearing without providing any reasons thereof or taking prior permission to be absent. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO/PIO to appear before the bench on 02.01.2020 at 01.20 pm 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 (2) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents which he chooses to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents should be sent to the Commission at least two days prior to the hearing via linkpaper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission, the CPIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well.

The case is accordingly adjourned.

Date of Hearing : 02/01/2020

The following were present: Respondent: Shri Vineet Kapoor, Manager and CPIO’s representative, present in person

Submissions made by Respondent during Hearing:

Shri Vineet Kapoor, CPIO’s representative was not able to explain the justification for denying the information without ensuring that Sec 11 procedure was followed, and asking the appellant to give reasons for seeking the information which amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, he submitted that since the notice was received on the same day, he could not attend the hearing on 09.12.2019. Furthermore, he submitted that Dr Dinesh Tyagi the CPIO was busy with the work of economic census hence he was not able to be present for the hearing.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the notice of hearing was duly served on 16.11.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED365281665IN and the CPIO’s representative’s plea that the same was received on the day of the hearing is not acceptable. The representative seemed poorly prepared and was unable to provide proper replies to the queries put to him and to those in the show cause notice. Furthermore, it appears that Dr Dinesh Tyagi avoided attending the Commission’s hearing despite the showcause notice issued to him. Moreover, no written explanation was received from him in this regard. This casual approach of the CPIO is viewed seriously and Dr Tyagi is given a last opportunity to attend the hearing on 21.01.2020 at 01.20 pm to respond to the show cause notice and to provide justification for the replies dated 09.04.2018 and 12.06.2018.

Interim Decision:

In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO/PIO to appear before the bench on 21.01.2020 at 01.20 pm 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 (2) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents which he chooses to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents should be sent to the Commission at least two days prior to the hearing via link-paper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission, the CPIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well.

The case is accordingly adjourned.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Devesh Kumar v. CSC e Governance Services India Ltd. Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MEITY) in Decision no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/139914/Interim, Date of Decision: 09/12/2019, 02/01/2020