CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000317/11880Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000317
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Singh
B-5-1, Model Town,
Delhi-110009
Respondent (1) : Mr. K. D. Dogra
Joint Director,
UTCS, GNCTD
Karkarduma, Shahdara Delhi
(2) Mr. P.K. Sinha,
Head Clerk,
Delhi Secretariat, GNCTD,
ITO, New Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 03.09.2010
PIO replied : No response
First appeal filed on : 25.11.2010
First Appellate Authority order : 13.12.2010
Second Appeal received on : 02.02.2011
S.No Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO
1. Provide information/ details and status of the application no. 2972/N.T. NO RESPONSE
dated 23.06.2006 filed by Sunil Kumar, Rohit Dabas, Arun Dabas. What
action has been taken so far (In the file item no. 176 to 179) (Savitri,
Shanti, Omi, Phool) Award no. 12/2005/2006 Barwala, Delhi
First Appeal:
No information/ documents were supplied.
Order of the FAA:
Order passed. PIO/ADM (NW) is directed to supply the information within 15 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information supplied within the prescribed time period.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 06/04/2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Singh;
Respondent : Mr. Lalit Kumar, Reader to ADM on behalf of Mr. K. D. Dogra, PIO & ADM(NW);
“The Appellant had basically sought the progress and action taken on his application, which
had been given on 23/06/2006 for regarding award of compensation. No reply or information was sent
to the Appellant and the First Appellate Authority on 13/12/2010 ordered information to be provided
within 15 days. The PIO defied this order also and gave a reply to the Appellant on 21/01/2011 asking
the Appellant to inspect the file and take copies after paying the requisite fees. It is apparent that the
PIO has no respect for the law. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the information on the
action taken in the following format:
Page 1 of 3
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
It is clear that the Appellant has been unnecessarily harassed by the PIO since he has not done his job.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It
may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive
and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling
of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of
undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation
for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but
helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the
outlook.
The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act orders the PIO/ADM to sent
a cheque for compensation of Rs.2000/- to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in
filing an unnecessary second appeal and waiting for the information which he should have got before
03/10/2010.”
Decision dated 06/04/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the
Appellant before 20 April 2011.
The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- is sent to the Appellant
before 30 May 2011.
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 appears 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. 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 06 May 2011 at 02.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information
inspite of repeated reminders to the respondent hence the Commission is also considering
recommending disciplinary actions under Section 20(2) against them.
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.”
Page 2 of 3
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing on 06/05/2011:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sinha, Deemed PIO & the then Naib Tehsildar at the office of ADM, North
West presently Head Clerk, Delhi Secretariat, GNCTD, ITO, New Delhi; and Mr. Lalit
Kumar, UDC;
Mr. Lalit Kumar, UDC has submitted that the RTI application dated 03/09/2010 was received
in the office of the PIO on 08/09/2010 and the PIO & ADM had sought assistance of the deemed PIO
& the then NT Mr. P.K. Sinha on 08/09/2010 U/s 5(4) of the RTI Act for providing the information.
Deemed PIO Mr. Sinha has submitted that the RTI application was diarized in his office on
16/09/2010 and he had forwarded the same to the Patwari Mr. Mukesh on 21/09/2010. Mr. Mukesh
had informed the deemed PIO/NT Mr. Sinha on 27/09/2010 that the matter pertain to the Accounts
Branch. Mr. Sinha had then forwarded the RTI Application to the Accounts Branch on 12/10/2010 and
the accounts branch had furnished the relevant information to the deemed PIO/NT on the same day
i.e.12/10/2010. Further Mr. Mukesh had informed the deemed PIO/NT Mr. Sinha that the appellant
can obtain a copy of the relevant file through CAI Form on 15/11/2010.
Mr. Sinha states that the file had been located in November and he had given the information to the
Mr. K. D. Dogra the then PIO and that Mr. Dogra did not send the information to the Appellant. He
claims that the responsibility for not furnishing the information rest with the then PIO Mr. K. D. Dogra
who is presently Joint Director, UTCS, Karkarduma, Shahdara Delhi.
The Commission issues a showcause notice to Mr. K. D. Dogra and Mr. P. K. Sinha to showcause why
penalty under Section-20(1) should not be levied on one of them for failure to provide the information
within 30 days. They are summoned to present before the Commission on 23 May 2011 at 04.30PM.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs Mr. K. D. Dogra the then PIO/ADM(NW) and Mr. P. K. Sinha
the then Naib Tehsildar to appear before the Commission on 23 May 2011 at 04.30PM
to showcause why penalty under Section-20(1) should not been imposed on one of
them.
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
06 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SK)
Page 3 of 3