CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/AD/C/2011/000560/SG/14248Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/AD/C/2011/000560/SG
Complainant : Mr. Anand Mani Dimri
N-625, Type-II
Sector-8, R.K.Puram
New Delhi-110022
Respondent : Mr. Deepak Panwar,
Deemed PIO & Section Officer
Publications Division
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complex
Lodi Road, New Delhi
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Anand Mani Dimri had filed an RTI application with the PIO, Publications Division,
Ministry Of I&B, New Delhi on 15/11/2010 asking for certain information. Since no reply was
received within the mandated time of 30 days, he had filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI
Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the Respondent on
07/07/2011 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an
explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission has received a letter dated 03/08/2011 from the Respondent PIO wherein it
has been stated that the information with regard to the RTI Application has been provided vide a letter
dated 28/07/2011, copy of which was enclosed. Further the PIO states certain facts with regard to
prior RTI Applications and Appeal/Complaints filed by the Complainant in the same regard. On
perusal of the information enclosed, the Commission observes that no point-wise information has
been provided specifically with regard to the present RTI Application. The PIO has instead given
reference of an earlier decision of the Commission passed in the matter of the Complainant with
regard to another RTI Application of a different date concerning the same issue as the present one.
However, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the PIO should provide information specifically with
regard to an RTI Application. Further the delay caused is also inordinate and without any reasonable
cause. There appears to be a delay of over 230 days in responding to the RTI Application. The PIO
has not provided any reasonable explanation to this effect.
Decision dated 25 August 2011 :
The Complaint was allowed.
“In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is directed to provide complete and correct information
point-wise with regard to the RTI Application dated 15/11/2010 to the Complainant not any later than
15/09/2011. Proof of dispatch of information should be sent to the Commission before 20/09/2011.
From the facts before the Commission, it appears that PIO has not provided the correct and complete
information within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Page 1 of 4
The delay and inaction on the PIO’s part in providing the information amounts to willful disobedience
of the Commission’s direction as well and also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information
may be malafide.
The PIO is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 22/09/2011 at
12.00pm along with his written submissions to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed
and disciplinary action be not recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
Further, the Respondents may serve this notice to such persons who are responsible for causing such
delay and direct them to be present before the Commission on the said date and time and a copy of
proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any should also be submitted before the
Commission.”
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 22/09/2011:
Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Pandey, PIO & Dir(Admn.), Mr. Deepak Panwar, Deemed PIO & Section
Officer, Mr. Ashish Dutta, Dy. Dir.(admn.), Mr. A.C. Kayal, Asstt. and Mr. Vipin Khullar, Section
Officer;
The PIO & Dir.(Admn.) Ms. Nidhi Pandey has submitted her written submission stating that
she took charge as the PIO on 06/06/2011. As per the available records, the RTI application dated
15/011/2010 was received in her predecessor’s office on 15/11/2010. Since the information sought
pertains to the Admin Section-I, the RTI application was forwarded to the Section Officer, Admin-I,
Mr. Deepak Panwar on 23/11/2010. A reminder letter was also sent to the Deemed PIO & Section
officer Mr. Panwar on 30/11/2010. Some information was furnished to the Complainant vide letter
dated 28/07/2011 only after having received the Commission’s notice dated 07/07/2011. PIO Ms.
Nidhi Pandey has submitted that since the office was shifted from Patiala House to CGO Complex in
2005, the records based on which information is to be furnished may have got misplaced. Some more
information has been furnished vide letter dated 14/09/2011. The deemed PIO Mr. Panwar has stated
that first time the information was furnished to the complaint was only on 28/07/2011. The
Commission asked Mr. Panwar the reasons for the delay. He claims that he sent the RTI application to
the dealing hand and then he does not know what happened. The PIO has also produced before the
Commission a file notings in which it is stated that a reminder was sent to Admin-I Section. Yet no
information was provided. The Commission finds that in general the respondents are not taking RTI
very seriously. The RTI application was filed on 15/11/2010 and the information should have been
provided before 15/12/2010. Instead the information has been provided only after the Commission’s
notice on 28/07/2011.
The PIO informs the Commission that part of the information has been given but part of the
information has not been provided since the records are not available. The information that has been
provided is from the reconstructed file and the available records.
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 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;
Page 2 of 4
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.
The RTI application was filed on 15/11/2010 and the information should have been provided before
15/12/2010. Instead the information has been provided only after the Commission’s notice on
28/07/2011 i.e. after a delay of more that 100 days. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr.
Deepak Panwar, Deemed PIO & Section Officer for the huge delay in providing the information, the
Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on
Mr. Deepak Panwar.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Deepak Panwar, Deemed PIO & Section
Officer. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the
Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Deepak Panwar `25000/ which is the
maximum penalty under the Act.
Page 3 of 4
The Additional Director General, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is
directed to recover the amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. Deepak Panwar,
Deemed PIO & Section Officer 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 `5000/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. Deepak Panwar and remitted by the 10th of
every month starting from November 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be
remitted by 10th of March, 2012.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
22 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP)
Copy:
1- Additional Director General
Publications Division
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complex
Lodi Road, New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Chief Public Information Officer
Director (Admin.),
Publications Division
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complex
Lodi Road, New Delhi
Page 4 of 4