CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001395/8419
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001395
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Rajkumar Meena
11/235, Sector - 07, CGS Colony,
Antophill,
Mumbai - 400037
Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar
Public Information Officer &
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Regional office, Delhi (North), 28, Community
Center, Delhi – 110052
RTI filed : 15/10/2009
PIO replied : 01/12/2009
First appeal filed on : 02/12/2009, 04/02/2010
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 18/03/2010
Second Appeal received on : 22/04/2010
S.No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Please provide me the daily progress report The Applicant’s claim had been entered in the
since 2nd Sep. 2009 till date of P.F. transfer system on 21.10.2009 and returned on 12 11.2009
application. because you have not mentioned PF/EPS No in
column no 12 of F-13.
2. Furnish information regarding the current PF account has not been transferred till date.
status of the transfer of the P.F. Account of
the Applicant.
3. Kindly provide the name of the official and In order to improve the services to the subscribers
the duration for which the Applicant & for speedy settlement of claims a new software
application was present with them. has been installed in the office and at the initial
stage the settlement process has got slow down
therefore the claims forms could not be entered in
the system so quickly & were lying pending in the
receipt section, therefore claim kept at receipt
section up to 20.10.2009 and than sent to
accounts section for action on
21.10.2009.
4. Furnish information regarding the action Because of installation of new software it was
taken on officials who took more than 30 beyond the control of this office therefore none
Days to reply to the Applicant’s RTI. can be held responsible.
Page 1 of 3
5. Kindly inform in about the time duration in Action already taken.
which action will be initiated against the
officials.
6. Please send the copy of the rule of the Download it from our website
department or any other citizen charter that www.eptindia.com.
has been followed by the department to
punish the officers who deliberately delay
the work.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
1. Not received information from CPIO. (02/12/2009)
2. Unsatisfied with the information provided by CPIO. (04/02/2010)
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
FAA replied some of the points of the Applicant and disposed off the appeal.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfied with the order of FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr.Rajkumar Meena;
Respondent : Mr. S. P. Puri, Accounts officer on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar, Public Information
Officer & Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II,
The PIO is directed to provide information on query-1 in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action Date on which forwarded to
Application The officer receiving it. taken Next officer/office.
received
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the application.
The RTI application has been made on 15/10/2009 which reached the office of the PIO on 23/10/2009.
The information should have supplied to the appellant before 23/11/2009 but is claimed to have been
sent by the PIO on 01/12/2009.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information mentioned above to the appellant
before 20 July 2010.
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 is apparent 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.
Page 2 of 3
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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 03 August 2010 at 12.00pm
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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
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
06 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ARG)
Page 3 of 3