CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002244/14950Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002244
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jawa,
J-105, Jhandewalan Road,
Near Hari Mandir School,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi-110055.
Respondent : Mr. Bal Kishan,
Deemed PIO & SS;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The Asstt. Commissioner,
Rohini Zone, Sector-5,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
RTI application filed on : 21/03/2011
PIO replied on : 15/04/2011
First Appeal filed on : 18/05/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 01/08/2011
Second Appeal received on : 16/08/2011
Information Sought:
1. From the date 01/04/1994 to March 1996 there are total 7009 temporary Safai Karamcharies
promoted as permanent. Provide information about when the amount- left be paid.
2. Permanent Safai Karamchari, Rohini Zone had not received arrear of 10% D.A. since 01/04/1994
to March 1996, provide information along with ward no.
3. Give reason on why there been The Bhavishya Nidhi not allotted to the permanent Safai
Karamchari, Rohini Zone, since 01/04/1994 to March 1996.
4. There is a increment in the salaries of the Daily Wager Substitute employees. In which ward
(Rohini Zone) the arrear been paid and in which ward it is not been paid till date,
The PIO reply:
1. It is a policy matter.
2. It is related to the Safai Superintendent/Rohini Zone, and Accounts Department/Rohini Zone.
3. This matter relates to the Rohini Zone.
4. This matter relates to the Rohini Zone.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"It has been observed, PIO, City Zone has taken 17 days to transfer the application to the Custodian of
Information that too was done in a wrong manner because the application itself shows that the information
was pertaining to Rohini Zone for which the application was transferred to Ac. (DMES) instead of
sending it to A.C. (Rohini) which could have avoided unwanted delay. A.C. (DEMS) has provided partial
information vide his letter dated 19/04/2011 and transferred the application to A.C. (Rohini) for supply of
Page 1 of 4
the remaining information vide letter No. 491/AC-I/DEMS/HQs/RTI/2011 dated 11/04/2011 with a copy
to the Appellant. Appellant has not received any information from Rohini Zone and he has filed an appeal
before First Appellate Authority. As per the Notification appointing first Appellate Authority and, PIOs,
Dy. Commissioner (Rohini Zone) is First Appellate Authority for Astt. Commissioner (Rohini Zone).
However, since the matter was pertaining to Department of EMS, the appeal was heard on 28/07/2011 by
undersigned considering the true spirit of Right to Information. During the course of hearing, Shri Sanjeev
Kumar Jawa, Appellant and Shri Balkishan who is the Custodian of Information attended the hearing. It is
a matter of great concern that though a period of more than two months has lapsed, SS (Rohini Zone) has
not bothered to provide information to the Appellant. He is, therefore directed to provide the information
free of cost to the appellant within 10 working days."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during the hearing held on 29/09/2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jawa
Respondent : Mr. Balkishan, Sanitation Superintendent, MCD, Rohini Zone
The PIO has sent the information on 16/08/2011 after the order of the First Appellate Authority. The
Appellant admits that he has received information. The Respondent admits that after transfer the RTI
Application was received on 21/04/2011. The RTI Application filed by the Appellant on 21/03/2011 was
transferred in a lazy and inefficient manner to the relevant PIO on 21/04/2011. The PIO has sent the
information only on 16/08/2011.
Decision dated 29/09/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The information has been provided to the appellant on 16/08/2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
Mr. Vasudev Sharma, Assistant Commissioner, 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 20th October 2011 at 10.30am
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.
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. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked
to the showcause hearing, it will be presumed that PIO is the responsible person.”
Relevant facts emerging during show cause hearing on 20/10/2011:
Respondent: Mr. Vasdev Sharma, PIO & AC and Mr. Bal Kishan, Deemed PIO & SS;
The PIO & AC Mr. Vasdev Sharma has submitted his written submissions, wherein it is
mentioned that the RTI application dated 21/03/2011 was received in PIO’s office on 19/04/2011,
however he joined as the PIO & AC only on 29/04/2011. He has stated that the said RTI application was
forwarded to the Deemed PIO & SS Mr. Bal Kishan vide office letter dated 20/04/2011. Subsequently
Page 2 of 4
during the hearing before the FAA held on 28/07/2011, Mr. Bal Kishan was present. The information was
furnished to the Appellant only on 16/08/2011 i.e. after the FAA’s order dated 28/07/2011. Deemed PIO
Mr. Bal Kishan has submitted his written submissions stating that the delay in providing the information
was caused due to his work load.
The RTI application has been received by the Deemed PIO Mr. Bal Kishan on 20/04/2011 and it appears
that he made no effort to provide the information to the Appellant. Only after the order of the FAA
information was provided to the Appellant on 16/08/2011. In his written submission he states that since
about 30 RTI applications are received in his office each month he was unable to provide the information
to the Appellant in time. He also states that though the FAA’s direction on 28/07/2011 was to provide the
information within 10 working days he could only comply with it by 16/08/2011. The RTI Act expects
information to be provided to the Appellant’s within 30 days of receiving the RTI application by the
Public Authority. Even if we assume that the respondent deemed PIO Mr. Bal Kishan should have
provided the information to the Appellant within 30 days of his receiving the RTI application, the
information should have been provided before 20/05/2011. Instead the information provided to the
Appellant only on 16/08/2011 i.e. after a delay of 86 days.
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;
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.
Page 3 of 4
Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Bal Kishan, Deemed PIO & SS for the delay in
providing the information to the Appellant, the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty
under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for the delay of 86 days. The Commission imposes a penalty on Mr.
Bal Kishan, Deemed PIO & SS under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of delay
for 86 days i.e. `250 X 86 days = `21500/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Bal Kishan, Deemed PIO & SS Since the delay in
providing the correct information has been of 86 days, the Commission is passing an order
penalizing Mr. Bal Kishan `21,500/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `21,500/- from the salary of Mr. Bal Kishan 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 `4300/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. Bal Kishan and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from November 2011. The total amount of `21,500/- will be remitted by
10th of March, 2012.
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
20 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved
1- The Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
3- Mr. Vasdev Sharma,
PIO, O/o The Asstt. Commissioner,
MCD Rohini Zone,
Delhi-110085
Page 4 of 4