CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002117/5247penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002117
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal
1775, Kucha Lattushah,
Dariba, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi - 110006.
Respondent : Mr. Madhukar Rao
Public Information Officer &
Librarian
Hardayal Municipal Public Library
Gandhi Ground, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi - 110006.
RTI application filed on : 27/05/2009
PIO replied : 17/06/2009
First appeal filed on : 10/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 20/08/2009
Second Appeal received on : 29/08/2009
BACKGROUND
:
Information Sought:
i) Whether it was fact that the Secretary of said library had made some appointments in
the Library which were later cancelled by successive administration of the Library.
ii) If yes, whether some of those appointment still working for the library or in any of its
branch but without getting any pay.
iii) If yes then number of such employees.
iv) Details of rules under which library was getting work from such appointees without
giving them any pay.
v) Whether any law allow any employer to gets its work done by its appointees without
paying salary to the employee.
vi) Present status of those employee of the said library who are working without being
paid.
vii) Time frame by which employment of such appointees will be confirmed.
viii) Time frame by which the library will pay the salary to those appointees, belonging to
the period when Mr. Ashok Jain was working as Secretary, for the work which was
already done.
ix) Whether the Library was not intending to pay salary for such appointees for the
period they had already worked/or may be working in future.
x) Whether the Secretary of the Library was authorized to make or cancel such
appointments without following rules and normal law.
xi) Whether appointments made by the then Secretary Mr. Ashok Jain unlawful or
illegal.
Page no. 1 of 4
xii) Details if any, of action taken by the Library against its then Secretary Mr. Ashok
Jain.
xiii) Any other related information.
xiv) File noting on movement of this RTI petition as well.
Reply of PIO:
The PIO replied that the matter related to the information asked by the Appellant, had been
transferred to an Impartial Inquiry Tribunal and the disclosure of the same information at that
stage would not be possible.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA in its order gave the reply following replies:
1. Appointments were made in the Library and later on these became subject matter of one
man Impartial Inquiry Tribunal.
2. The conclusion of the aforementioned tribunal are self evident copy of the report of the
tribunal can be had on usual charges under RTI Act 2005, payable through banker
cheque/demand draft in the name of Hony. Secretary, Hardayal Municipal Library, Delhi
– 110006.
3. Reply is contained in the Report.
4. & 5. are matter of law.
6. Situation is still fluid and no comments would be appropriate.
7. 8, & 9. as given in reply of query no. 6.
10. It is common knowledge that responsibility in taking decision cannot be ordinarily of an
individual but such decisions are committee decisions.
11. & 12. The report of the Tribunal was self evident.
5. 13. Copies of notings of the relevant RTI File could be furnished on usual payment
under RTI Act2005, payable through Bankers Cheque or Demand Draft in the name of
Hony. Secretary, Hardayal Municipal Library, Delhi – 110006.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received from the PIO and FAA.
Relevant Facts that emerged during Hearing on 28 October 2009:
“The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;
Respondent : Mr. Satish Kumar Rathee on behalf of PIO Mr. Madhukar Rao;
The PIO has neither given any reasonable reply nor any reasons under the Law for refusing to
give the information. The mere setting up of enquiry tribunal cannot be a ground for denial of
information since there is no provision in law exempting such information. Refusal to give
information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8(1).”
Commissions’ Decision:
“The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the complete information point wise to the Appellant before 10
November 2009. He will also give a copy of the report of the tribunal and file notings sought in
the original RTI application to the Appellant.”
Page no. 2 of 4
Facts leading to Showcause:
The issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appeared
that the PIO Mr. Madhukar Rao was guilty of not furnishing information within the time
specified under sub-section (1)of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act. Hence a showcause notice was issued to him, and he was directed
give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him on
27 November 2009 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 27 November 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;
Respondent : Mr. Madhukar Rao, PIO & Librarian;
The PIO states that he does not know the law and therefore rejected the RTI application
on 17/06/2009 without any basis in the law. The Appellant states that the information has been
received by him after the order of the Commission. The Appellant states he is satisfied with the
information.
The PIO is asked to given reasons for not supplying the information earlier and refusing
to provide the information without any basis in law. In his written submission the PIO has at
point-11 stated that, “the keeping in view of the gravity of the issues, it was not found
appropriate as it would impede the process of investigation, which was under investigation by
the inquiry tribunal as aforesaid. Moreover, at that point of time, the PIO was not in a position to
furnish the information sought by the applicant. Therefore, the PIO exercised his power under
clause (h) of Section 8 of RTI Act and had given a reply dated 17.06.2009 stating therein that the
information sought is under investigation by the impartial inquiry tribunal…” The PIO was
asked to justify how he has suddenly woken up to the possibility of an exemption being quoted
on 26/11/2009. Initially the PIO had offered no reasons for denying the information. The PIO
was asked to justify even at this late date how realizing the information would impede the
process of investigating. He states that the Appellant could have leaked the information to others.
The PIO was again asked how even if the entire country knew about this information, how this
would impede the process of investigation. The PIO is not able to give any justification for this
position and it is evident that he had initially denied this information and had not thought any
reasons under the RTI Act by which the denial could be justified. It is unfortunate that the FAA
Mr. Yashpal Arya has given a vey poor order without any application of mind and without
ordering the information to be given.
In view of the above the PIO has offered no reasonable cause for refusing the
information. The Commission finds this as a fit case of levying penalty under Section 20(1) of
the RTI Act. Since the RTI application was made on 27/05/2009 information should have been
provide before 27/06/2009. Instead the information has been provided on 04/11/2009. Since the
delay in providing the information has been over 100 days the Commission levies a maximum
penalty of Rs.25000/- under the RTI Act.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying
penalty on Mr. Madhukar Rao, PIO & Librarian. Since the delay in providing the correct
information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr.
Madhukar Rao for Rs. 25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
Page no. 3 of 4
The President, of the Hardayal Municipal Public Library to recover the amount of
Rs.25000/- from the salary of Mr. Madhukar Rao and remit the same by a demand draft or a
Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and
send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the
Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The
amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr.
Madhukar Rao and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from January 2009. The total
amount of Rs.25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of May, 2010.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 November 2009
CC:
1- Dr. Kanwar Sain
President
Mayor of Delhi,
MCD
Town Hall, chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
Page no. 4 of 4