CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003228/10736Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003228
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jogendra Pal Singh
C-I/764, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
Sector-IV (Madangir)
New Delhi-110062
Respondent : Mr. Pravesh Ranjan Jha
Public Information Officer &
Sub Divisional Magistrate (Hauz Khas),
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Old Tehsil Building, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030
RTI application filed on : 02/08/2010
PIO replied : 06/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 06/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 08/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 19/11/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. The details (name and designation) of the officer who sent Tehsildar, Hauz Khas.
the caste certificate through post.
2. Was the post speed post, registered post or something else. Speed Post.
3. The serial of the post. All the speed post in the office can be
inspected on any Saturday (except second
Saturday) after 10:30am.
4. The details and address of the post office. Post Office, Mehrauli.
5. Is there a provision of enquiry against the officer who has not Yes.
done the work properly?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant is not satisfied with the information given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Reply was furnished well in time but as appellant is not satisfied with the information provided, PIO is
directed to re-examine the reply and provide fresh information within 10 days of this order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The concerned PIO sent a reply to the appellant that the information provided is on order on 23/10/10.
The information given by the PIO is not satisfactory. The appellant requests that there should be enquiry
against the concerned officer and the caste certificate should be issued.
Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 31 December 2010:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Jogendra Pal Singh
Respondent : Absent;
“The PIO has sent a reply after the order of the FAA to the Appellant on 23/10/ 2010 stating that
the information previously provided was in order and hence no further clarification was required. This
effectively means that the FAA Mr. Vivek Pandey had given an order without any application of mind.
The Appellant states that in respect to query-03 the copy of the speed post receipt should have been given
to him and this was what the FAA had in mind. The Appellant had clearly sought this information in
query-03 and the PIO has stated that the Appellant should come and inspect the records for this. The PIO
should have provided the attested photocopy of the speed post receipt by which the communication had
been sent.”
Commission’s Decision dated 31/12/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to send a photocopy of the speed post receipt to the appellant
before 20 January 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. 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 25 January, 2011. He
will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as
proof of having sent the information to the appellant.”
Facts leading to showcause hearing on 21 March 2011:
The Commission received written submissions dated 27/01/2011 from the PIO. On perusal of the same,
the Commission noted that the explanations provided for not providing the complete information within
the prescribed time limit were not found to be satisfactory. Moreover, copy of the information sent to the
Appellant along with the proof of dispatch and other relevant documents were not enclosed therewith.
Therefore the Commission asked the PIO to present himself before the Commission on March 21, 2011
at 12:30 pm along written explanations to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and
disciplinary action not be recommended against you for failing to comply with the provisions of the RTI
Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing held on 21 March 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Jogendra Pal Singh
Respondent : Mr. Nitin Panigrahi, Tehsildar (Hauz Khas) on behalf of Mr. Pravesh Ranjan Jha,
SDM(HK);
“The PIO had given information to the Appellant that his caste certificate had been sent by speed
post. The Commission had directed the PIO to give a copy of the speed post receipt to the Appellant since
the PIO had stated that he could not provide the receipt number of the speed post. The PIO had asked the
Appellant to come and inspect the speed post receipts. The PIO states that the SDM’s office has innovated
and come up with a system whereby thousands of speed post receipts are kept together so that no body
can locate whether any communication sent by speed post was actually sent or not. The offer to the
Page 2 of 3
Appellant to inspect these records is a complete waste of time since if the receipt is not found it could still
be claimed that the caste certificate has been sent and the Appellant must not have been able to locate it.
Any record kept in a government office is kept in a manner so that it can be located and the claim being
made by the PIO appears to indicate that the caste certificate was not sent by speed post. The Respondent
Mr. Nitin Panigrahi has signed the information sent to the Appellant and admits that he was responsible
for sending this information on 06/09/2010. The Commission concludes that since no evidence has been
produced before the Commission that a caste certificate has indeed been sent by speed post, this was false
information provided to the Appellant. The Commission asked the deemed PIO Mr. Nitin Panigrahi the
reasons for providing this false information. Mr. Panigrahi claims that it was written on the register that
the caste certificate had been sent by speed post but no mention was there on the register about the speed
post receipt number. He therefore states that he cannot be held responsible for the absurd manner in which
the records are kept. The Commission directs Mr. Panigrahi to produce the register before the
Commission on 23 March 2011 at 10.00AM. If this is indeed the case the Commission may not proceed
with the penalty proceedings but will consider ordering compensation to the Appellant for the loss and
detriment suffered by him because of the completely absurd method of maintaining records by the
SDM(Hauz Khas).”
Adjunct Decision dated 21 March 2011:
“Mr. Nitin Panigrahi is directed to produce the register as directed above before the
Commission on 23 March 2011 at 10.00AM.”
Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing held on 23 March 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Nitin Panigrahi, Tehsildar (Hauz Khas) on behalf of Mr. Pravesh Ranjan Jha,
SDM(HK);
Mr. Nitin Panigrahi, Tehsildar has produced before the Commission the register which was earlier
maintained showing the issue of various certificates. This register shows a large bunch of certificates that
were issued mentioning the application numbers without any mention of when they were sent by speed
post without any mention of dates. This appears to have been done so unsystematically that the
Respondents contention appears to be correct. He has also shown the Commission the records that are
now maintained. He has initiated a system of sending SMS to the Applicants for certificates and recording
this date wise. If the Applicant does not come to receive his certificates in about seven days, the certificate
is being sent by speed post. The dispatch is properly recorded in a register with sped post receipts being
pasted so that it is possible to identify by what speed post receipt the certificate was sent. The
Commission commends Mr. Panigrahi for ensuring that citizens receive their certificates and for
maintaining the records systematically. In view of this the penalty proceedings are dropped.
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
23 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SC)
Page 3 of 3