CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001425/8513
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001425
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ernest D. Samuel
25, Shivagirl, Barakotri
DHARWAD — 580 007
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer &
Regional P.F. Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund organization,
Sub Regional Office, Srinath Complex,
New Cotton Market. HUBLI – 580 029.
RTI application filed on : 06/11/2009 PIO replied : 09/12/2009 First appeal filed on : 15/11/2009 First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 22/01/2010 Second Appeal received on : 30/03/2010
The applicant wants information regarding his provident fund no. UP/4049/2078.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information
Officer (PIO)
1. Kindly provide information regarding proceedings of Information enclosed.
enquiry been conducted u/s 7A of the Employees’
Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act
1952.
2. Kindly provide authenticated copy of Investigation report Information enclosed
with all documents filed in the matter by enforcement
officer Sri. B. Honurappa.
3. Kindly provide Name & address of authority to whome The officials are not lethargic.
complains can be made regarding the enforcement
officers who have been lethargic, lackadaisical in his
approach to the investigation leading to dereliction of
duty.
4. Kindly provide information regarding the action that can Action can be taken as per CCS
be taken as per law against such persons for dereliction of Conduct Rules by appropriate
duty. authority.
5. Furnish information regarding the Church of South India It doesn’t fall within the meaning of
Trust Association amenable to the EPF and MP Act. EPF & MP.
6. Kindly provide Authenticated copies of all documents Letter is enclosed.
submitted by KND in the Investigation and to the letter of
the Enforcement Officer, Shri. Honurappa dated
10/09/2009.
Page 1 of 3
7. Kindly provide information regarding the action taken Providing false information
against the KNO for providing false and misleading regarding EPF is punishable.
Information In the matter and name the competent
authority.
Ground of First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by CPIO.
FAA Order
Information supplied is sufficient and appeal disposed.
Ground for Second Appeal:
The appellant had stated the following ground:
a) Have Proceedings of enquiry been conducted Information Provided u/s 7A of the EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS_PROVISIONS ACT,_1952._If not why?
b) Authenticated copy of Investigation report with Only Xerox copy of the report dt. 5-10-09 is
all documents filed in the matter by enforcement provided. Authenticated copy of the report and the
officer Sri. B. Honurappa. documents filed are not provided. HENCE
INFORMATION PROVIDED IS INCOMPLETE
& MISLEADING
c) If the enforcement officer has been lethargic, Opinion was not sought. Name of the officer is
lackadaisical in his approach to the investigation not provided; HENCE INFORMATION
leading to dereliction of duty, to whom should the PROVIDED IS INCOMPLETE & MISLEADING
complaint be made In the matter? Please provide
name and address for the same.
d) What action can be taken as per law against Information Provided
such persons for dereliction of duty?
e) Karnataka Northern Diocese Is a branch/unit of Information Provided
Church of South India Trust Association as per
the response of the Public Information Officer,
Department of Income-tax [Exemption) Chennai
Is it not amenable to the EPF and MP Act? The
Church of South India Trust Association is a body
corporate registered under the Indian Companies
Act. (Response Ref: DDIT(E)I/Rfl/2009-10 of
20/07/2009 and FORM 56 along with relevant
annexure is enclosed.
f) Authenticated copies of all documents No Authenticated copies provided. Only Xerox
submitted by KND in the investigation and to the copy of. letter of 24-9-09 is provided.
letter of the Enforcement Officer, Shri. Honurappa Authenticated copies of documents submitted by
dated 10/09/2009. KND are not provided. HENCE INFORMATION
PROVIDED IS INCOMPLETE & MISLEADING
g) What action will be taken against the KND for Details of the competent authority are not
providing false and misleading Information In the provided. HENCE INFORMATION PROVIDED
matter and who Is the competent authority to do IS INCOMPLETE &MISLEADING
Page 2 of 3
so?
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. The appellant
has sent his submissions by fax in which he has stated that incomplete information has been provided
to him on point (b) since only two documents have been provided, authenticated copy of the report and
the documents filed are not provided. The appellant has stated that he has received 197 pages of
information on 25/03/2010 and he was wrongly asked to pay Rs.394/- for this. Since this information
was provided after the mandated period of 30 days this had to be provided free of cost as per Section
7(6) of the RTI Act and it was improper for the PIO to demand additional fees for this.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the authenticated copy of the report and documents
filed to the appellant before 10 August 2010.
The issue before the Commission is 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 is apparent that the PIO is 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.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 10 August 2010 at 2.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
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
14 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ARG)
Page 3 of 3