dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
Central Information Commission
Case No. CIC/AT/C/2007/00117
Dated: 30.1.2009
Complainant : Shri I. Prakasham
Respondents : Department of Revenue
The Commission, vide order dt. 11.9.2007 in Case No. CIC/AT/C/2007/00117
in the complaint filed by Shri I. Prakasham against Department of Revenue, had
imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri A. K. Barua, the then Deputy & CPIO for
delay in providing information to the complainant.
2. A review petition was filed by Shri A. K. Barua pleading that he was not
aware of photocopying charges being deposited by the complainant on 19.2.2007. He
came to know about deposit of fee only on 4.6.2007 and photocopies were supplied to
the complainant on 6.6.2007. As such, there was no delay on his part.
3. After examining the matter, the Public Authority was directed to cause an
inquiry in the matter and submit a report to the Commission, fixing responsibility for
the delay from the date of payment of fee by the complainant on 19.2.2007 to
4.6.2007, till the CPIO received the information regarding payment of charges.
Commission also decided to stay the recovery of penalty amount till the decision on
the inquiry report.
4. The Public Authority conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter through a
Deputy Secretary Shri L.R. Aggarwal and forwarded a copy of the report to the
Commission. With regard to fixation of responsibility, respondents stated as under:
i) The complainant had not indicated correct file reference number of his
application, which caused confusion. Had he given the correct file number, the
receipt would have straight away gone to the concerned Section.
ii) None of the officers had violated any particular provision of any rule or
Administrative Instructions to hold him / her responsible for the offence and
punitive action.
iii) That considering the facts and circumstances no clear picture emerged to
apportion the blame in correct proportion on the individual members of staff
and officers of the Public Authority.
iv) The applicant in particular and the officers and staff of RTI Cell, Ad.IV, Ad.II
and Ad.II B branches in general could be held responsible. However, there was
1
no methodology prevalent in the system to divide such responsibility in cut and
dried slices for apportionment of the blame and proportionate punishment.
v) There was no indication in records which could suspect motive of an
individual. All the staff/officers were clear from this angle.
vi) There was a clear system failure, which needed prompt corrective action by
framing appropriate guidelines, which would ensure correct action and if
violated would clearly fix delinquent.
vii) Since by contributing negligence the applicant was a party to the offence, he
could not be entitled to relief seeking punishment to the opposite parties.
5. The respondents also explained the reasons for delay stating that the
Complainant had quoted wrong reference number in his letter dated 13.2.2007, vide
which he deposited the fee. Due to this reason papers could not reach the right person
/ section, for which the responsibility also lies with the complainant. They however
concede that even if the complainant had quoted the wrong reference number, the
Sections dealing with the subject could have adopted a more pro-active approach link
the papers to resolve the problem. The respondents, therefore, circulated instructions
amongst all CPIOs to bring about systemic improvement, so that such communication
gaps do not occur again.
6. Since some onus for delay had been placed by the respondents on
complainant, it was decided to hear both sides in their oral submissions. Copies of the
replies received from the respondents were forwarded to the complainant.
7. In pursuance of notice dated 11.12.2008, the matter was heard on 15.1.2009.
The respondents were represented by Shri L.K. Gupta, Joint Secretary and Shri L.R.
Aggarwal, Deputy Secretary. The complainant and review petitioner were absent.
8. On oral submissions made by the respondents and on perusal of documents,
Commission finds that the complainant was also partly responsible for the delays in
disposal of his RTI application. The complainant, being a central government
employee, would have been very much aware of importance of quoting correct file /
reference number while replying to the communications received from Government
bodies. By quoting incorrect reference number in his RTI petition, the complainant
caused confusion which resulted in his not getting photocopies of the documents in
time. It is evident that there is no delay on the part of Shri A. K. Barua, the then
Deputy Secretary & CPIO. Therefore, the penalty imposed on Shri A. K. Barua, the
then CPIO is dropped. Shri Barua’s review petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(A. N. TIWARI)
INFORMTION COMMISSIONER
2
Authenticated by
Sd/-
(D. C. Singh)
Assistant Registrar
3