Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Dhanush Dhari Pandit vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 21 April, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Dhanush Dhari Pandit vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 21 April, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Club Building (Near Post Office)
                        Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                            Decision No. CIC/DS/C/2009/000021/11120Adjunct
                                                        Complaint No. CIC/DS/C/2009/000021

Complainant                      :          Mr. Dhanushdhari Pandit,
                                            Sankat Mochan Nagar,
                                            Adjacent to Sacred Heart School,
                                            Asnabad Ward No. 11,
                                            District Karma, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya,
                                            Jharkhand - 825 409

Respondents                          :     Mr. Chandra Deo,
                                           CPIO & Assistant Welfare Commissioner,
                                           O/o Welfare & Cess Commissioner,
                                           Labour Welfare Organisation, Ministry of Labour &
                                           Employment, Bihar & Jharkhand,
                                           Karma, P.O. Jhumritelaiya,
                                           District Koderma, Jharkhand

Facts

arising from the Complaint:

The Complainant had filed a RTI application dated 02/05/2009 with the Respondent CPIO asking
for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time, he filed
a complaint before this Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the
Respondent 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 neither received a copy of the information sent to the Complainant, nor has it
received any explanation from the CPIO for not supplying the information to the Complainant.
Therefore, the only presumption that can be made is that the CPIO has deliberately and without
any reasonable cause refused to give information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Failure on
the part of the CPIO to respond to the Commission’s notice shows that there is no reasonable cause
for the refusal of information. Further, the Complainant has also informed the Commission through
his letter dated 05/1/2011 that he has not received any information till date.

Decision dated January 24, 2011:

The Complaint was allowed.

“In view of the aforesaid, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide the complete information
in regard to the RTI Application dated 02/05/2009 to the Complainant before 25/2/2011 with a
copy to the Commission. From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the CPIO has not
provided the correct and complete information within the mandated time and has failed to comply
with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the CPIO’s part in providing the
information amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission’s direction and also raises a
reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.
The CPIO, is hereby directed to send his written submissions to show cause why penalty
should not be imposed and disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20
(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. This should be sent to the Commission by 1st March 2011.”

Facts leading to show cause hearing held on April 21, 2011:

The Commission received a letter from the Complainant wherein he alleged that complete
information had not been received by him despite the order of the Commission. By show cause
notice dated 28/03/2011, the CPIO was directed to appear before the Commission on 21/04/2011
for a show cause hearing.

Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on April 21, 2011:
The following were present:

Respondents: Mr. Chandra Deo, CPIO & Assistant Welfare Commissioner and Mr. Om Prakash,
UDC.

The CPIO stated that the RTI application dated 02/05/2009 was received by Mr. Vijay Kumar, the
then CPIO. However, it appears that no action was taken by him in relation to the said application.
Mr. Chander Deo took charge as CPIO in November 2009. He stated that the RTI application was
not brought to his knowledge and consequently, no action was taken by him. The CPIO stated that
he was on leave on account of LTC from 16/12/2010 to 24/12/2010. Thereafter, he was required to
visit Mumbai on account of personal reasons and attend a conference in New Delhi. He resumed
office only on 10/01/2011. During this period, Mr. P. J. Tirke, Welfare Administrator was
officiating as CPIO.

The Commission’s notice dated 12/12/2010 was received by Mr. P. J. Tirke, Welfare
Administrator on 17/12/2010, who forwarded the same to Mr. B. K. Yadav, Admn. Assistant on
23/12/2010. However, neither did Mr. B. K. Yadav prepare any reply in relation to the RTI
application nor Mr. P. J. Tirke, officiating as CPIO, enquire of Mr. B. K. Yadav regarding the said
application. Mr. Chandra Deo brought to the notice of the Commission that Mr. B. K. Yadav has
been charge- sheeted for his negligent attitude in handling communications received from the
Commission and an enquiry has been initiated against him under Rule 14, CCS CCA Rules.

When Mr. Chandra Deo resumed office on 10/01/2011, he was not informed about the
Commission’s notice. Thereafter, on receipt of the Commission’s order dated 24/01/2011, the
CPIO provided the information to the Complainant on 31/01/2011. The information provided
appears to be satisfactory.

Adjunct Decision:

In view of the aforesaid, the Commission hereby directs Mr. Vijay Kumar, the then CPIO, Mr. P.
J. Tirke, Welfare Administrator and Mr. B. K. Yadav, Admn. Assistant to present themselves
before this Commission on May 23, 2011 at 3:00 pm along with their written submissions to show
cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action recommended against them
under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Further, they may serve this notice to any other official(s) who
are responsible for the delay in providing the information, and may direct them to be present
before the Commission along with them on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. They shall also
produce copies of documents/ proof which they have relied upon before the Commission on the
said date.

If the Complainant or Respondent wishes to participate in the hearing by teleconference/
videoconference, a request can be sent to the Under Secretary and Deputy Registrar of the
Commission at least 10 days in advance. The Commission will try and arrange for the
videoconferencing. The Participant will have to go to a NIC studio which is situated at most
District Headquarters.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
April 21, 2011

CC: (1) Mr. Vijay Kumar, the then CPIO (through Mr. Chandra Deo, CPIO &
Assistant Welfare Commissioner);

          (2)        Mr. P. J. Tirke,
                     Welfare Administrator,
                     Labour Welfare Organisation, Ministry of Labour &
                     Employment, Bihar & Jharkhand,
                     Karma, P.O. Jhumritelaiya,
                     District Koderma, Jharkhand


          (3)        Mr. B. K. Yadav,
                     Admn. Assistant,
                     O/o Welfare & Cess Commissioner,
                     Labour Welfare Organisation, Ministry of Labour &
                     Employment, Bihar & Jharkhand,
                     Karma, P.O. Jhumritelaiya,
                     District Koderma, Jharkhand


(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ANP)