CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000685/9015Adjunct-II
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000685
Complainant : Mr. M.P. Srivastava
Urmila Bhawan, Road No.-14A,
East Ashok Nagar, Kankar Bagh,
Patna-800020
Respondent (1): Mr. Giridhari Biswal
PIO & Asstt. P.F. Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Regional Office, D K Block, Sector-II,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091
Respondent (2): Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra
Asstt. P.F. Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Regional Office, D K Block, Sector-II,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. M.P. Srivastava had filed a RTI application with the CPIO, EPFO, Regional Office, Kolkata-700091 on
23/02/2010 asking for certain information. However, on not having received any information within the mandated
time period of 30 days, he filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission on 26/05/2010.
On this basis, the Commission issued a notice directing the PIO, EPFO, Regional Office, Kolkata on 28/05/2010 to
provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information
within the mandated time.
The Commission received a letter dated 21/06/2010 from the CPIO, Regional Office, Kolkata alongwith the
copy of information provided to the Complainant and the explanation from the concerned PIO & APFC (Admn.),
Regional Office, Kolkata for delay in providing the information. The Commission also received a letter from the
Complainant on 02/07/2010 alleging that the information received with respect to Query no. (9), (10) & (11) is
incomplete. Further, the written explanation received from the PIO & APFC, RO, Kolkata for the delay in
responding to the RTI Application does not appear reasonable. There appears to be a delay of above 60 days in
responding to the RTI Application dated 23/02/2010.
Decision dated August 17, 2010:
The Complaint was allowed.
“In view of the aforesaid, the PIO & APFC (Admn.), Regional Office, Kolkata is hereby directed to provide
the complete and correct information on Query nos. (9), (10) & (11) as mentioned above to the Complainant before
15/09/2010. Further, from the facts before the Commission, the failure to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act
in providing the information within the mandated time and the inaction on the PIO’s part in providing the complete
Page 1 of 3
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 PIO & APFC (Admn.), Regional Office, Kolkata is therefore,
directed to appear before the Commission on 29/09/2010 at 12:30 pm alongwith his a written explanation to show
cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1)
and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, he may serve this notice to any more person(s) who are responsible for this 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. The PIO should also bring along proof of seeking assistance from other
person(s), if any.”
Facts leading to show cause hearing held on February 10, 2011:
At the show cause hearing held on 29/09/2010, neither party appeared. Therefore, by show cause notice dated
24/01/2011, both parties were once again directed to appear before the Commission on 10/02/2011 for a show cause
hearing.
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on February 10, 2011:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. M. P. Srivastava (through audio- conference on 09431648401);
Respondent: Mr. Subhash Chand, Section Officer (HQ).
“The Complainant states that he has received information on the other points and only information
on query 9 is now balance. He wants the information on query 9 as per the defaulter’s list on 31/03/2009.”
Adjunct Decision dated 10/02/2011:
“The PIO, EPFO (Kolkata) is directed to provide the information on query 9 to the Complainant as on 31/03/2009
before March 5, 2011.
The PIO, EPFO (Kolkata) was supposed to appear before the Commission to show cause why penalty under
Section 20(1) of the RTI shall not be imposed on him as per the show cause notice issued to him on 24/01/2011. He
has failed to appear before the Commission and has not sent any submissions explaining his absence. The
Commission however gives him one more opportunity to present himself before the Commission to show cause
why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be levied on him on March 15, 2011 at 12:00 pm. In
case he fails to send any submissions or appear before the Commission, it will be assumed that he has no
explanation to offer for the delay and hence, the delay has occurred without any reasonable cause.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on March 15, 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Giridhari Biswal, PIO & Asstt. P.F. Commissioner;
“Mr. Giridhari Biswal states that for the RTI application made on 27/02/2010 he provided the information
on 21/06/2010. He states that the information had to be provided on 11 points and this took up a lot of time. The
PIO admits that he gave no information to the Complainant within 30 days as required by the RTI Act. It is also
significant that inspite of the delay complete information has not been provided to the Complainant. The
Respondent states that he was not the PIO during the period February to June 2010 and that he took charge only on
26/06/2010. He states that the PIO at the time of the RTI application was Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra who is now
posted as Assistant PF Commission, Regional Office Kolkata. The Commission directs Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra
to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be levied on him for failure to provide the
information within 30 days as per the RTI Act. Mr. Biswal states that eh had informed Mr. Mishra to appear for the
showcause hearing today but he did not appear. The Commission gives one last opportunity to Mr. Manoj Kumar
Mishra to appear before the Commission on 05 April 2011 at 10.30AM to showcase why penalty under Section
20(1) should not be imposed on him.”
Adjunct Decision dated 15/03/2011:
“The Commission directs Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra to appear before the Commission on 05 April 2011 at
10.30AM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on him for the delay in providing the
information to the Appellant.”
Page 2 of 3
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing held on 05/04/2011:
Complainant: Mr. M.P. Srivastava
Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APFC, RO, Kolkata
APFC, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra has identified that the information sought in Query nos. 1 to 8 &
10 & 11 are pertaining to the Personal-I Section and the Query no. 9 pertains to the Compliance Section.
He has submitted two office orders dated 08/01/2010 & 24/06/2010 stating that during the period from
Feb 2010 to Jun 2010, the incharge of Personal-I Section was Mr. Ramanand. At that time the Link
Officers were Mr. P.K.M. Raju and Mr. G.D. Biswal. Mr. Mishra has claimed that he was the Link
Officer for Mr. G.D. Biswal only after 24/06/2010. Further Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra the incharge of
Compliance Circle-IV since 08/01/2010. The Complainant has stated that in compliance of the
Commission’s order dated 10/02/2011, he received some information on Query no. 9 from the PIO vide
letter dated 21/02/2011. The Complainant has submitted that the information provided to him on Query
no. 9 is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
In view of the abovesaid, the Commission is unable to identify who is the person responsible for
not providing the information on the RTI application dated 23/02/2010 within the stipulated time as per
the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the FAA & RPFC-I Mr. P.K. Mishra to identify the
person responsible for not providing the information on the RTI application dated 23/02/2010.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs FAA & RPFC-I Mr. P.K. Mishra to inquire into the matter
and send a report to the Commission identifying the officer(s) responsible for not
providing the information within the stipulated time. The FAA will send this report to the
Commission before 05 May 2011, after which the Commission will issue showcause
notice for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission
further directs the FAA & RPFC-I Mr. P.K. Mishra to look into the matter and ensure that
the correct and complete information in Query no. 9 of the RTI application dated
23/02/2010 is sent to the Complainant before 30/04/2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
05 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RA)
CC:
To,
Mr. P. K. Mishra
RPFC-I,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Regional Office, D K Block, Sector-II,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091
Page 3 of 3