CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/1452/11846Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001452
Complainant : Mr. O.P Kaushik
H.No. 922 (Ground Floor),
Housing Board Colony,
Sector-29, Faridabad-121007, Haryana
Respondent : Mr. Ram Rattan,
SSSA & Deemed PIO
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Government of India
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Behind Fire Station, Sector 15A
Faridabad, Haryana
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant had filed a RTI application dated 11/06/2010 with the Regional P.F.
Commissioner EPFO, Faridabad, Haryana asking for certain information. Since no reply was
received within the mandated time period of 30 days, the Complainant filed a Complaint under
Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice
directing the Respondent on 06/12/2010 to provide information to the Complainant and further
sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission received a letter dated 06/01/2011 from the Respondent wherein it has been
stated the RTI application of the Complainant dated 11/06/2010 was received in the
Respondent’s office on 05/07/2010 and was replied vide letters dated 23/10/2010 and
23/11/2010. It was further stated that the RTI application could not be replied as the diary
register for the period 01/08/2005 to 31/03/2006 was not available in the office. It is also
submitted that the same could not be traced out by the Receipt and Dispatch Section and hence
the delay in supplying information to the Complainant.
On perusal of the records before the Commission it is found that the information provided by the
Respondent to the Complainant is not appropriate.
Decision dated April 4, 2011:
The Complaint was allowed.
“In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is hereby directed to provide complete and specific
information as per the available record to the Complainant before 25/04/2011 with a copy
to the Commission.
Page 1 of 4
Furthermore, the issue before the Commission is of not providing the requisite information by
the PIO within 30 days, as required by law.
From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the Respondent have not provided the
correct and complete information within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the
provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the Respondent’s part in providing the
information raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.
The PIO is hereby directed to present himself before this Commission on 28th April 2011 at
12.30 pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed
and disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act
should not be taken. Further, the PIO may serve this notice to any other official(s) who are
responsible for this delay in providing the information and may direct them to be present before
the Commission along with himself on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The PIO shall also
bring proof of seeking assistance from other official(s), if any.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on April 28, 2011:
The following were present:
Respondents: Mr. S. S. Arora, PIO & APFC and Mr. Ram Rattan, SSSA & Deemed PIO;
The Complainant had sought information in his RTI application dated 11/06/2010
regarding a letter sent by him on 22/08/2005 and the action taken on it. The Respondent stated
that the RTI application dated 11/06/2010 was received on 05/07/2010. The information as
available on record was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 22/10/2010.
The Respondents stated that the Dak Receipt Register for the period August 2005 was not
traceable in the office. Sufficient efforts were made to trace the said register and ultimately, a
non- traceable report regarding the Dak Receipt Register was submitted by Mr. Ram Rattan,
SSSA (Record Keeper) on 22/10/2010. As per the report, the said register was weeded out
during May 2010 after the retention period of three years as prescribed in the Accounting
Manual.
The PIO Mr. Arora states that he has sought the assistance of Mr. Ram Rattan, Sr. Social
Security Assistant (SSSA) under Section-5(4) to provide the information. Mr. Ram Rattan did
not provide the information and hence the delay. The Commission asked Mr. Ram Rattan to
explain the cause for this delay. He states that he was trying to locate the records and could not
find it. The information given to the Complainant is that the records are weeded out. It is
unthinkable that an official was looking for a records for over 100 days without realizing that it
has been weeded out. The simple answer appears to be that there was carelessness and no
reasonable ahs been advanced for the delay.
In the instant case, the RTI application was received by the PIO on 05/07/2010 and therefore
information should have been provided before 05/08/2010. However, the information as
available on record that “the record was not available” has been provided on 22/10/2010 i.e.
after a delay of 78 days. Some other information has been provided on other queries and there is
no explanation why at least this simple information has not been provided within 30 days.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “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
Page 2 of 4
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.”
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission
must impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect,
incomplete or misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of
the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove
that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under
sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees
two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides
that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of
proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO
as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
Mr. Ram Rattan, SSSA & Deemed PIO has not been able to offer any reasonable explanation for
the delay in providing the information. Since no reasonable cause has been advanced for the
delay in providing the information the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty
under Section-20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 78 days on Mr. Ram
Rattan, SSSA & Deemed PIO i.e. `250/- X 78 days = `19,500/- .
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds
this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ram Rattan, SSSA & Deemed PIO. Since
the delay in providing the correct information has been of 78 days, the
Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ram Rattan `19,500/-.
Page 3 of 4
The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO is directed to recover the
amount of `19,500/- from the salary of Mr. Ram Rattan 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 `4875/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Ram
Rattan and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from June 2011. The total
amount of `19,500/- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
April 28, 2011
CC:
To,
1- Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
EPFO
Ministry of Labour and Employment
14, Bhikaji Kama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
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.)(RJ)
Page 4 of 4