CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002082/9400Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002082
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Neelam Goel
R-8/81, Raj Nagar,
Ghaziabad.
Respondent : Mr. Uday Bakshi
Public Information Officer & Regional PF Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization
Ministry of Labour
Government of India
Regional Office, Nidhi Bhawan, Sector – 5,
Opposite Medical College, Jagrati Vihar,
Meerut – 250006.
RTI application filed on : 16/03/2010 PIO replied : 31/03/2010 First appeal filed on : 17/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed Second Appeal received on : 16/07/2010 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. The Room nos. 31/86 and 588 of the After depositing the Annual Return report,
mentioned Institute in the application were the names, nos. and details of the members
assessed. Name and details of the members can be given.
from whom the amount was collected during
the assessment.
2. Details of the amount given to each of the The balance amount can only be disclosed
members. after crediting the amount payable by the
organization to the concerned member.
3. Was interest charged on the amount of 31, The interest has not been charged yet as it can
86,588? If yes, provide the break up of the only be charged after depositing the yearly
amount and the interest. If the interest was not amount.
charged then the reason for the same should
be given.
4. If the organization does not certify the claim The payment could be made to the members
form, then will the members receive any without certifying the claim form by the
payment? If yes, then the date on which it will organization. In such case the claim form
be received and if not then the copy of the along with enclosures could be certified by
law/ order according to which it cannot the concerned officer. But for making
happen. payment it is necessary to have the
monthly/annual P. F. Payment details.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on September 17, 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. G. C. Khare, Accounts Officer on behalf of Mr. Uday Bakshi, Public Information
Officer & Regional PF Commissioner;
“The PIO has given the information that the employer has not deposited the PF amount. The
information sought by the appellant can only be given once a return is filed by the employer with the
amount. The PIO states that the default amount has been assessed and recovery proceedings have been
initiated. The Commission therefore orders the PIO to send the copy of the assessment order as also all the
correspondence and file notings relating to the initiation of the recovery proceedings. The PF Authorities
have the power to initiate criminal proceedings in such cases. The PIO will inform the appellant whether
any criminal proceedings have been initiated. In case no criminal proceedings have been initiated the PIO
will send the reasons for not initiating the criminal proceedings if these have been recorded. If there are
no records of it, this should be stated.”
Decision dated September 17, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before 10
October 2010.”
Facts leading to show cause hearing held on December 10, 2010:
The Commission received a letter from the Appellant alleging that no information had been provided to
her. By show cause notice dated 25/10/2010, the CPIO & RPFC- I was directed to appear before the
Commission on 10/12/2010 for a show cause hearing along with the requisite information.
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on December 10, 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. K. Arora, Enforcement Officer on behalf of Mr. Uday Baxi, CPIO & RPFC- I.
Mr. S. K. Arora stated that the file relevant to the information sought was pending with the Vigilance
Department and therefore information could not be provided to the Appellant within the prescribed time
limit. Mr. Arora stated that the relevant file was received only on 07/12/2010 and information was sent to
the Appellant on 09/12/2010. On perusal of the copy of the information, the Commission noted that the
information provided appeared to be satisfactory. However, Mr. Arora failed to submit a copy of the proof
of dispatch i.e. speed post receipt before the Commission. Therefore, copy of the information is being
enclosed with this order for the perusal of the Appellant.
Further, the Commission observed that Mr. Uday Baxi, CPIO & RPFC- I failed to comply with its order
dated 17/09/2010 within the time limit specified therein. In this regard, Mr. S. K. Arora stated that the file
relevant to the information sought was pending with the Vigilance Department and therefore information
could not be provided to the Appellant within the prescribed time limit. The Commission is not satisfied
with this explanation. Under the RTI Act, if the information sought is not available with the PIO, he is
required to seek assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned officer and provide the
information to the applicant. In the instant case, it appears that the CPIO & RPFC- I failed to seek
assistance of the Vigilance Department under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and consequently did not
provide the information to the Appellant within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, no reasonable
explanation has been provided by the CPIO & RPFC- I for not complying with the order of the
Commission dated 17/09/2010. Such blatant non- compliance of the Commission’s directions amounts to
denial of the Appellant’s fundamental right to information. The Commission has also noted that by show
cause notice dated 25/10/2010, Mr. Uday Baxi, CPIO & RPFC- I was directed to appear before the
Commission for a show cause hearing. However, he neither appeared before the Commission nor gave
any justification for his absence.
In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Uday Baxi, CPIO & RPFC- I is hereby once again summoned to appear in
an inquiry to be held before the Commission to consider the issues arising in CIC/SG/A/2010/002082 at
the above address on January 10, 2011 at 3:00 pm.
Mr. Uday Baxi, CPIO & RPFC- I may make oral or written submissions to the Commission on that date
to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) and why disciplinary
proceedings shall not be recommended against him under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. Mr. Uday Baxi,
CPIO & RPFC- I is directed to produce before the Commission any relevant document that he may have
relied on in his written submissions. If there are other persons responsible for not complying with the
order of the Commission and who have not been included in this show cause notice, Mr. Uday Baxi,
CPIO & RPFC- I is directed to serve this show cause to them and direct them to appear before the
Commission on 10/01/2011 along with them.
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 the RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
December 10, 2010
Enclosed: Copy of information sent to Appellant on 09/12/2010.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)