CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000425 dated 28.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Vimal Kumar Khemani
Respondent - Central Information Commission (CIC)
Decision announced: 16.6.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 6.11.2008, Shri Vimal Kumar Khemani of Transparent
Reliable Accountable Peoples Movement, Aligarh, U.P. applied to the CPIO,
Central Information Commission seeking the following information:
“1. How many Commissioners are working in Central
Information Commission, their names and Office address
may kindly be provided.
2. Besides Commissioners, how many employees, permanent /
temporary & outsourced are employed in CIC? Please provide list. Also
provide details of names and designations of officers posted with each/
which Commissioner.
PS
• There is provision of penalty u/s 20(1)(2) for non-supply of
information in time.
• The information asked for is not exempt u/s 8 and u/s 8(1)(J)
any information which can be placed before Parliament cannot be denied
to any citizen.
• U/s 7(9) information has to be provided in the manner it is
sought by appellant.
• U/s 2(J)(i)(ii) appellant has right to inspect any records /
documents and obtain certified copies of the same.
• U/s 7(3)(a) appellant has to be provided details of charges
demand additionally.
To this Shri Khemani received a response dated 18.12.08 point wise from
CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar, as follows:
Point No.1
There are 7 Information Commissioners in the Central Information
Commission at present. – (1) Shri A. N.Tiwari, (2) Shri M. M.
Ansari, (3) Shri Satyanand Mishra (4) Shri M. L. Sharma. These all
four Commissioners sit in 2nd floor of August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji
Kama Place, New Delhi-110066 and remaining three Information1
Commissioners (1) Shri O. P. Kejariwal (2) Smt. Annapurna Dixit
(3) Shri Shailesh Gandhi sit in Block No. 4, Old J.N.U. Campus,
Near Post Office, New Delhi-110067.
Point No. 2:
Permanent staff gets frequent transfers. Therefore, no such record
is maintained. The present posting of permanent staff is attached.
No records are maintained in respect of Temporary / Outsourced/
Self employed staff. Under Secretaries and Consultants posted
with the Information Commissioners, as designated officers are as
under:
1. With Shri A.N.Tiwari – Shri D.C.Singh, US
2. With Shri M.M.Ansari – Shri M.C.Sharma, U.S.
3. With Shri Satyanand Mishra, Shri Vijay Bhalla,
Consultant.
4. With Shri M. L.Sharma, Shri K.L. Dass Consultant
5. With Shri O. P. Kejariwal Shri G. Subramaniam, US
6. With Smt. Annapurna Dixit Shri K. G. Nayar, Consultant
and
7. With Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Shri S. L. Bhuttan,
Consultant.”
Aggrieved, Shri Khemani moved an appeal before the First Appellate
Authority, Central Information Commission on 23.12.08 with the following plea:
“About strength of staff at CIC and with different Commissioners.
The application was given at CAPIO Deptt. of Posts on 10.11.2008,
which was forwarded to PIO on 14.11.2008. The question about its
receipt on 11.12.2008 cannot be admitted which might have
occurred due to internal inefficiency.
1. Regarding Point No. 1 the information as given is not correct, the
name of Shri Wajahat Habibullah does not appear here.
2. The detail of staff attached with Commissioners as provided is not
in correct order. The list of Temporary/ Casual/ Volunteer staff/ assistance
as stated not to be maintained cannot be accepted, for an important Public
Authority anybody or everybody cannot have access to the official files or
duties.”
Upon this, Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan, Secretary & Appellate Authority
issued notice of hearing on 16.1.09 scheduled for 28.1.09. Although the matter
was heard on 29.1.09 appellant had not received an order leading him to move a
second appeal before us on 9.2.09, asking for the following:
“1. The true information as applied.
2
2. The PIO and FAA above named be directed to compensate
your appellant for the cost of attending the hearing before
the Commission.
3. Penal action under section 20 (1) & (2) be initiated against
the CPIO.
4. In case CPIO fails to furnish the information then he should
be directed to file an affidavit on NJ Stamp Paper recording
the reasons thereof.”
Appellant Shri Khemani has also contended as below:
“The PIO above named has not provided the true information; to
hide the facts has stated that no records of Temporary/ contract or
volunteer workers are not maintained. In case this statement is
true the PIO may be directed to submit an affidavit stating the
above facts.”
The appeal was heard on 16.6.10 with arrangement for videoconference
with Aligarh. However, on that day, Shri Vinod Kumar Varshney appeared before
us at CIC chambers with a letter of authority from appellant Shri Vimal Kumar
Khemani dated 5.5.10, which has been placed on record.
Respondent JS Shri Tarun Kumar, CPIO displayed a received copy’ of the
RTI application of 6.11.08 which carries the dated stamp of 11.12.08, as the date
of its delivery in the Commission. CPIO has in fact responded to the application
within a week. CPIO also submitted that a supplementary response had been
provided to appellant with the complete list of Information Commissioners
including Chief Information Commissioner. The latter was conceded by Shri
Varshney, who, however, submitted that with regard to the staffing of the
Commissioner’s Offices the only information that was provided was that this
staffing is constantly changing. What he needed was the staffing on the date that
he had moved his application.
On the question of outsourced employees, it was the contention of CPIO
Shri Tarun Kumar that the list of these employees is maintained by the
Outsource Agency. The Commission, on the basis of the numbers and the
3
categories involved, makes payment to that Agency every month, which Agency
then is expected to maintain the records. He, however, clarified that when the
Agency’s period of engagement terminates, the complete record is taken over by
the Commission so that the Commission remains in a position to actually access
information regarding employees available in the Commission, on a particular
date.
DECISION NOTICE
To satisfy appellant Shri Khemani that his application of 6.11.08 was
indeed received in this Commission only on 11.12.08, a copy of the stamped
application will be provided to him. No such copy was sought in the first appeal,
which only complains of the delay in response. On the question of staffing of the
offices of each of the Information Commissioners, the plea of appellant is
allowed. CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar will now provide to Shri Vimal Khemani the
complete list of employees assigned to the Offices of each of the Information
Commissioners on the date that the application was made i.e. 6.11.08. Similarly,
since CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar JS now has that information, as he has conceded
in the hearing, he will also provide a list of outsourced employees available on
the above date in the Commission.
CPIO is further directed that even though it is not necessary that the
record of outsourced employees be maintained in the Commissions offices, it
must be ensured that the control of this office on such information remains intact
and constant. Hence to bring the processes of administering this Commission
into full compliance with the RTI Act 2005, CPIO is directed u/s 19 (8) (a) that in
any agreement with the Outsource Agency, a clause will be required to be added
to ensure full that these records will be made available to the Commission
whenever required, even during the existence of an ongoing contract of the
Commission with the Agency. To this extent the appeal is allowed. There will be
no costs.
4
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
16.6.2010
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
16.6.2010
5