PIO: The documents asked for are of more than 10 years which were held in the destruction board; A sincere effort was made to trace out the documents from old files - CIC: The delay in reply was due to negligence; A token penalty of Rs 2000/- imposed
24 Jan, 2022
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of Conveying order of recruitment of JE (QS&C) & others which was conducted in 2008.
2. Provide approved/final list of selected candidates for the post of JE (QS&C).
3. Provide the date of signing of all the appointments letter by competent authority
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide any information
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he was not given any reply till date.
The CPIO submitted that due to the prevailing COVID situation a timely reply could not be provided.
Observations:
The Commission is surprised to see the lack of application of mind of the CPIO. The RTI application was filed on 09.09.2019 and therefore, COVID 19 cannot be the ground for delay. Moreover, the RTI application was not replied to even after receipt of the CIC notice and this amounts to clear violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Interim Decision:
A showcause notice is therefore issued to the CPIO, K.K Pandita, Admin Officer & PIO to explain why penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him for not providing a reply to the appellant. Also the then CPIO should explain in writing why the RTI application was not replied on time. Both the officers shall attend the next hearing with proper explanation regarding the same in the form of written submissions in advance. The next date of hearing shall be on 28.12.2021 at 2.10 p.m
Grounds for filing Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide any information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he was not given any reply till date.
The CPIO submitted that due to the prevailing COVID situation a timely reply could not be provided.
Observations:
The Commission is surprised to see the lack of application of mind of the CPIO.
The RTI application was filed on 09.09.2019 and therefore, COVID 19 cannot be the ground for delay. Moreover, the RTI application was not replied to even after receipt of the CIC notice and this amounts to clear violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Interim Decision:
A showcause notice is therefore issued to the CPIO, K.K Pandita, Admin Officer & PIO to explain why penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him for not providing a reply to the appellant. Also the then CPIO should explain in writing why the RTI application was not replied on time. Both the officers shall attend the next hearing with proper explanation regarding the same in the form of written submissions in advance. The next date of hearing shall be on 28.12.2021 at 2.10 p.m.
Interim Decision:
The CPIO shall also provide a suitable reply to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission
The case is adjourned accordingly.
Date of Hearing: 28/12/2021
Date of Decision: 28/12/2021
The following were present:
Respondent: K.K Pandita, Admin Officer & PIO, present over phone
Submissions made by Respondent during Hearing:
The CPIO submitted that the delay in responding to the RTI in an earlier time has been largely due to the fact that the documents asked for are of more than 10 years and the same were held in the destruction board as per policy.
However, a sincere effort was made to trace out the documents from old files. Moreover, last two years delay was due to COVID, which had further delayed the process. He summed up regretting the delay.
Observations:
As far as the direction for providing reply is concerned, the same was complied with on 02.12.2021. However, the reason for not replying cannot be accepted on the pretext of documents being held in the destruction board as per policy. The reply could have been given to this effect on time.
Final Decision:
Taking into consideration of the fact that the CPIO failed to provide a reply on time and violated the RTI Act, and the same was due to negligence the Commission decided to impose a token penalty on the CPIO.
Accordingly, the Commission, imposes a token penalty of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand only) on K.K Pandita, Admin Officer & PIO for the reasons mentioned above. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand only) shall be deducted by the Public Authority from the salary of K.K Pandita, Admin Officer & PIO, by way of demand draft drawn in favour of “PAO, CAT”, New Delhi and forward the demand drafts addressed to Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: dyregcr2-
cic@gov.in Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The aforesaid penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 15.03.2022.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Anand Singh Chauhan v. Military Engineer Services in File No. CIC/MESER/A/2020/670823, Date of Decision: 01/12/2021, 28/12/2021