CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002497/10162
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002497
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Vijendra Garg,
H. No.-111, Road No.3,
Near Little Angel School, New Baselwa Colony,
Sector 29, Faridabad,
Haryana-121008.
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Regional PF Commissioner-II,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Ministry of Labour, Government of India.
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
28, Community Centre,
Wazirpur Industrial Area,
Delhi- 110052.
RTI application filed on : 19/01/2010 PIO replied : 23/02/2010 First appeal filed on : 24/05/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2010 Second Appeal received on : 07/09/2010
The Appellant sought information regarding Regar choupal(SC Choupal), situated at Nangloi:
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Reason for name of the Appellant being mentioned i) An order for stop payment of PF & EPS
incorrectly in the records of the PIO. cheque number 173912 & 651739 respectively dt.
3.8.2009 was sent by this office vide letter number
Cash/Wazirpur/II/DL/16975/2074/19334-75 dated
21.12.2009 so as to ensure no misuse of cheques
issued but not credited.
ii) The undelivered intimation which is
required for re-authorisation was called from cash
section. As per cash section, encashment position
upto 6 months of issue of cheque, i.e. till January,
2010 is not available presently and the same would
be availablein the bank within 15 days.
2. Reason for making the cheque in favour of ICICI
Bank.
3. Reason for delayed payments.
4. Reason for no response towards the complaint filed
by the Appellant in the Public Grievance cell.
5. Reason for no one taking responsibility for the
mistake committed by the PF Officer.
6. Reason for the unsupportive nature of the staff at
this office.
7. Reason for not taking necessary action towards
rectifying the mistake.
8. Reason for releasing the Appellant’s amount ASAP
when mistake was committed by the PF officer.
9. Whether it is important to communicate in person
each time there is a query, reason for disregard
towards mails.
First Appeal:
Improper and vague information furnished by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
And whereas, the CPIO vide his letter dated 23-02-2010 has provided the information to the
Applicant. And whereas, not satisfied with the reply provided by CPIO, the applicant filed an appeal
before the appellate authority vide his application on 8-06-2010.
After going through the facts of the case, CPtO is hereby directed to provide requisite
information to the applicant within 10 days
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information received from the PIO despite orders from FAA to furnish the same within 10 days.
Decision:
The appellant has stated that the PIO has not provided information inspite of the
order of the FAA. The PIO has not claimed any exemption under Section 8 (1) of the RTI
Act, hence there appears to be no grounds for refusal of information. The PIO should
provide the information as per the records available. If there is nothing on record with
respect to any of the queries, this should be stated.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information available on record to
the appellant before 15 December 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt
that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the
information to be given. 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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under
Section 20 (1) before 20 December 2010. He will also send a copy of the information sent to the appellant and
copy of the speed post receipt by which the information was sent to the appellant.
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
25 November 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SC)