CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000384/12427Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000384
Appellant : Mr. Manish Mehra
C/o Dr. Deepak Sharma
Genome Mapping Laboratory,
Avian Medicine Block, CARI,
Izzatnagar, Bareilly-243122
Respondent : Mr. V.K. Singh,
PIO & Director,
Directorate General of Employment &Training
Ministry of Labor and Employment
Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi-110 001
RTI application filed on : 10.10.2010
RTI transferred on : 21.10.2010
First appeal filed on : 10.12.2010
FAA's order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 07.02.2011
Information Sought:
Certified Copy of the complete service book record of Mr. D. Mallick presently designated as
ATI, Kanpur, UP.
PIO's reply:
Not mentioned.
First Appeal:
No reply from the PIO.
Ground of the 2nd Appeal:
No reply from the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 18/05/2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Manish Mehra on video conference from NIC-Bareilly Studio;
Respondent : Absent;
“The Appellant states that he has received information sent by Mr. V. K. Singh, CPIO. The
photocopy of the service books he has received is of Mr. D. Mallick, Director, ATI Kanpur. There
is no explanation why this information has been sent so late. The RTI application has been
transferred to Mr. V. K. Singh on 21/10/2010. Hence the information should have been provided
to the Appellant before 27/11/2010. Instead the information has been sent to him only on
18/03/2011.”
Page 1 of 4
Decision dated 18/05/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The information has been received by the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO Mr. V. K. Singh within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO Mr. V. K. Singh 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.
Mr. V. K. Singh, PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
07 June 2011 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.”
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 07/06/2011:
Respondent: Mr. V.K. Singh, PIO & Director, DGE&T;
The PIO Mr. V. K. Singh has given written submissions to the Commission. The PIO Mr.
V.K. Singh has submitted that he never received the RTI application that was forwarded on
21/10/2010 by the Nodal officer, Main Sectt.. After having received the First Appeal from the
Appellant on 10/12/2010, a copy of the original RTI application dated 10/10/2010 was obtained
from the RTI Cell(Main Sectt.). Subsequently, the FAA decided on 07/02/2011 not to disclose the
requisite information to the Appellant claiming Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further on the basis
of an Information Commission’s Decision no. CIC/AD/A/2011/000014 dated 03/02/2011, which
was sent by the Appellant to the PIO vide letter dated 14/02/2011, the requisite information was
provided to the Appellant on 18/03/2011.
The RTI application had been sent by Mr. Devender Singh, Director/Nodal Officer (RTI) on
21/10/2010 to Mr. V. K. Singh, CPIO/DGET in the same building. However, Mr. V. K. Singh
claims he did not receive the letter sent by Mr. Devender Singh. This shows and extremely
inefficient method of working if a letter from one officer does not reach another officer in the
same building. Mr. V. K. Singh however admits that he received the first appeal and therefore on
10/12/2010 realized that the RTI application had not been replied to. Yet he did not send any reply
or denial of information to the appellant. He claims that on 07/02/2011 the FAA sent an order
claiming that the information should not be disclosed as it is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act. Finally Mr. V. K. Singh realized that the information needs to be sent and hence sent it
on 18/03/2011. The Commission accepts the PIO’s plea that he did not get the letter sent on
21/10/2010 by Mr. Devender Singh in the same building. However on 10/12/2010 he had certainly
received the RTI application but did not send the information to the Appellant.
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 respondent Mr. V.K. Singh, PIO & Director, DGE&T acknowledges that he received the RTI
application on 10/12/2010. He did not send any information nor any reasoned refusal to the
Appellant before 10/01/2011 as required by the RTI Act. He states that there was a shortage of
staff. The RTI Act requires all PIOs to provide information within 30 days failing which a penalty
of `250/- per day has been mandated under the RTI Act. It is expected that all officers manager
their resources in a manner so that they deliver information to citizens within 30 days. The
Commission cannot accept shortage of staff as a reasonable excuse for not providing the
information. No reasonable cause has been advanced for the delay in providing the information.
Accepting the respondent’s contention that he only became aware of the RTI application on
10/12/2010 the information should have been provided before 10/01/2011. Instead the information
was provided only on 18/03/2011 i.e. after a delay of 66 days.
Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. V. K. Singh, PIO & Director DGE&T for the
delay in providing the information the Commission imposes the penalty under Section 20(1) of the
RTI Act on the PIO for a delay of 66 days at the rate of `250/- per day of delay i.e. `16500/-.
Page 3 of 4
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds
this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. V. K. Singh, PIO & Director. Since the
delay in providing the information has been of 66 days, the Commission is passing
an order penalizing Mr. V. K. Singh `16,500/-.
The Director General, Directorate General of Employment & Training is
directed to recover the amount of `16,500/- from the salary of Mr. V. K. Singh 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 `4125/- per month every month from the salary of
Mr. V. K. Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from July 2011.
The total amount of `16,500/- will be remitted by 10th of October, 2011.
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
07 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)
CC: To,
1- The Director General
Directorate General of Employment &Training
Ministry of Labor and Employment
Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi-110 001
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
Page 4 of 4