In response to SCN, the PIO explained of being new to the Currency Branch, confidential nature of the Branch, additional charges, paucity of staff, imposition of lock-down, a very large no. of references etc. - CIC accepted the explanation; No malafide

ORDER

1. The Commission while hearing the captioned appeal deemed it expedient to call explanation from the then PIO on account of an apparent lapse on his part to furnish information. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinafter:

“Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then CPIO in not having provided reply to the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. Now, Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO, therefore Commission directs Therefore, Commission directs then PIO through the present PIO to send his/her written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The present PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO.”

2. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, an explanation filed by then PIOMr. Rajiv R Singh, Deputy Secretary to Government of India & the then Under Secretary (Currency) & Link officer of US (SPMC & C)/CPIO dated 02.12.2022, is on record and same is produced herein below:

“...The undersigned humbly submits the following in compliance of above Orders dated 27.10.2022 for kind consideration of Hon'ble Commission:-

(i) All above 3 RTI applications were received on 15.02.2020. As submitted in the written submission for hearing on 30.12.2021 in these cases (copy of extract at Annexure - l), there was grave adverse circumstances in which the undersigned was working since November, 2019 due to being new to the Currency Branch (joined on 15.07.2019 as Under Secretary), confidential nature of the Branch (demonetization, currency and other security printing matters), additional charge of SPMC & Coin Branch (virtually for whole Coin and Currency Division of the Department which was under Joint Secretary level officer), paucity of staff in both the Branches, large no. of pending references of Shri Varun Krishna since June, 2019. The adverse circumstances worsened further after imposition of lock-down and thereafter order for functioning on lower staff strength of office (30 % of the staff) due to Covid pandemic from 21.3.2020. This made undersigned to do the important and urgent works of not only of Under Secretary but also of other staff. Some of important works carried out during the relevant period were to look into the aspects of production of Currency, currency paper and coins even during the Corona pandemic, finalization of security features of Currency Note in May, 2019 (started since year 2008), searching of files related to Year 2002 in CBI cases, attending parliamentary matters during the budget session from 2.3.2020 lo 23 3.2020, leaving no time to attend other works, including RTI related function.

(ii) The appellant was making a very large no. of references in various forums viz. PG portals (of PMO, President Secretariat, Vice-President Secretariat, ARPG) (for example out of total '1792 grievances received in the Coin and Currency Division from 9.12.2017 lo 17.8.2021 ,530 PG was from the Appellant as Annexure- ll), CVC references, emails, large no. of RTI applications, 1't and 2nd RTI Appeals and other representations, it was very difficult to keep track of all these references especially sometimes references were received online or sometimes physical copy and sometimes both. This made it problematic to cull out the requisite information for replying the RTI applications of the appellant. Further, the various references received from the appellant from around June 2019 were kept pending in SPMC Section (additional work assigned to undersigned). As SPMC Section was not able lo submit them due to paucity of staff (only 1 ASO out of 3 sanctioned posts of ASO), the undersigned asked them to give them to me for processing in December, 2019. ln view of grave situation mentioned in para (i) above, the undersigned could concentrate and compile by making detailed table of all the pending references of Shri Varun Krishna on 1.7.2020 (copy of extract of note sheets of file at Annexure - lll). All the earlier references of year 2018 and 2019, dealt by the then US (SPMC & C), were gone through to understand and keep them to find out the information sought by applicant at the time. Then only, it was possible for undersigned to find out the requisite information. As soon as the undersigned compiled the pending receipts on 1.7.2020, I replied the RTI applications of the appellant in above cases on 3.7.2020.

(iii) It may be mentioned that the applicant is MS-University of North Dakota-USA (as per his email). As stated above, he was making enormous RTI applications, RTI 1st Appeal, RTI 2nd Appeals, PG references, email and other representations using his computer skills, which made it very difficult to keep pace with him especially the undersigned working in computerized environment on such matter after long gap recently from 15.07.2019(after returned deputation) at that time.

(iv) Replies to RTI applications were sent in bonafide manner after compilation of requisite information despite all odds. The delay in reply was due to circumstances beyond the control of undersigned especially Covid pandemic during the relevant time...”

3. In light of the aforesaid submissions, the noticee rules out any malafide intention on his part. Commission do not find it expedient to initiate any further action against him.

4. The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read ‘malafide’ on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:

17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.

5. In the facts of the present case, the Commission accepts the explanation tendered by the then PIO and finds no reason to disbelieve him. There is nothing on record to suggest that he acted malafidely or failed to exercise due diligence. The penalty proceedings are dropped. Noticee stands discharged.

Heeralal Samariya

Information Commissioner

Citation: Varun Krishna v. PIO, Under Secretary-(Administration), Department of Economic Affairs (Ministry of Finance), CIC/DOEAF/A/2020/679436; Date of disposal of Show cause Order : 30.10.2023