CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003205/10818Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003205
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shashikant Yadav,
R/o 220, Swayam Siddha Society,
Punjabi Bagh (West)
New Delhi-110026
Respondent : Mr. Sunil Shanwal,
Tehsildar & Deemed PIO
O/o the SDM(Punjabi Bagh)
Government of NCT of Delhi, Revenue Department,
Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh,
Nangloi, Delhi- 41.
RTI application filed on : 27/08/2010
PIO replied : 29/10/2010
First appeal filed on : 12/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 18/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 18/11/2010
Information Sought:
The appellant sought information regarding the verification process carried out 2 years ago for
appellant by two police officials. Due to this, the post of appellant is provisional. The queries of
appellant are:
1. To provide with the current status of the verification process.
2. To furnish with details of progress in the matter after verification is done by police.
3. To inform with the reasons for delay in verification procedures.
4. To provide with estimate time period by which the verification would be complete.
5. To furnish with the normal time period taken for such verification procedures.
6. To provide with the details of correspondence sent to appellant’s office, if any.
Reply of PIO:
Note: Reply given after FAA ordered PIO
PIO replied for queries No. 1 & 2 that the verification details were sent to SDM Punjabi Bagh on
22.12.08. So the application of RTI has been transferred to the concerned department.
For Ques. No. 3, the PIO replied that there was no delay on the part of PS Punjabi Bagh.
For Ques. No. 4 to 6, the PIO replied that it is not applicable in the view of above.
First Appeal:
No information provided by PIO.
Page 1 of 5
Order of the FAA:
PIO was ordered to “intimate the status of said letter to the appellant within 5 days. Incase, appellant
does not receives any information within the prescribed period as mentioned in this order, appellant
may approach FAA within 15 days.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information given by PIO/SDM after 10 days of the order passed by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 07 January 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Shashikant Yadav;
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar on behalf of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, PIO & SDM(Punjabi
Bagh);
“The Appellant is employed in Ministry of Rural Development. His police verification was
required to be done and this was given to the SDM(Punjabi Bagh). In December 2008 it was sent to
the Local Police Station for verification. Since the Police Verification report was not received by the
Department in which the Appellant is working he filed the RTI application on 27/08/2010 to know the
status of this. SDM (Punjabi Bagh) forwarded the RTI application to the SHO(Punjabi Bagh) on
04/09/2010. PIO West District of Police has informed the Appellant on29/10/2010 that his
verification form has been returned after verification to SDM(Punjabi Bagh) on 22/12/2008 and hence
the Appellant’s RTI application was against transferred back to SDM(Punjabi Bagh).
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had ordered on 18/10/2010 that information should be provided
within 05 days, this order was not implemented. On 29/10/2010 PIO/Additional Commissioner of
Police-I had transferred the RTI application back to SDM(Punjabi Bagh) to which also no reply was
sent to the Appellant. Only on 07/12/2010 SDM(Punjabi Bagh) Mr. Pradeep Kumar informed the
Appellant that his office was unable to trace the papers related to the verification hence they again
requested DCP Special Branch to conduct the verification. The sequence of events narrated here
shows gross inefficiency at the office of SDM(Punjabi Bagh). It is also clear that the order of the FAA
was not implemented nor was information provided when the RTI application was sent back to
SDM(Punjabi Bagh) by PIO of the Police Department.
It is evident that the Appellant has been put to unnecessary harassment of having to file this appeal
and coming before the Commission because of complete carelessness and inefficiency of
PIO/SDM(Punjabi Bagh).
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It
may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive
and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling
of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of
undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation
for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but
helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the
outlook.
The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards compensation of
Rs.2000/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing this appeal and getting the
information late.”
Page 2 of 5
Commission Decision 07 January 2011 :
The Appeal was allowed.
“The information has now been provided to the Appellant.
The PIO is directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- as compensation is sent to the
Appellant before 20 February 2011.
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 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which
raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. 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 28 January 2011 at 03.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1).”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 28 January 2011:
The following were present
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar & Deemed PIO;
The Respondent had claimed that he had transferred the RTI application to the Police
Department since the verification had been referred to the Police. On 29/10/2010 PIO of Police
Department had transferred the RTI application back since he had mentioned that after verification on
the papers had been sent to SDM(Punjabi Bagh) on 22/12/2008. The respondent claims that he did not
received it. He admits that he received the order of the FAA dated 18/10/2010 on 25/10/2010 which
directed him to provide the information within 05 days. From the fact that the FAA had ordered the
information to be provided within 05 days it is evident that he believes the information was available
with the Department. The Commission asked Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar to explain why he did not
implement the order of the FAA. He claims that he was waiting for a reply from the Police
Department. He claims that the letter of 29/10/2010 from Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police-I
(West District) was not received by him. Thus he claims that he did not obey the order of the FAA
and apparently made no effort to see if the Police had sent any reply.
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
Page 3 of 5
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.
The respondent claims that he did not received it. He admits that he received the order of the FAA
dated 18/10/2010 on 25/10/2010 which directed him to provide the information within 05 days. The
information as per the order of the FAA should have been provided to the Appellant within 05 days
i.e. before 30/10/2010. Instead he sent information to the Appellant only on 07/12/2010 claiming that
no information was available and that the verification report had been sent to DCP(Special Branch)
Police Bhawan and no information available with his office. Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar & Deemed
PIO has not provided any reasonable cause for the delay in providing the information. The
Commission therefore imposes a penalty on Mr. Sunil Shanwal for the delay of 36 days from
30/10/2010 to 07/12/2010. The Commission imposes a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on
Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar & Deemed PIO at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 36 days i.e.
`250/- X 36 days = `9000/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit
case for levying penalty on Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar & Deemed PIO. Since the
delay in providing the information has been of 36 days, the Commission is passing an
order penalizing Mr. Sunil Shanwal `9000/-.
Page 4 of 5
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `9,000/-
from the salary of Mr. Sunil Shanwal 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 `4500/ per month
every month from the salary of Mr. Sunil Shanwal and remitted by the 10th March 2011
and 10th April 2011. The total amount of `9000/- will be remitted by 10th of April,
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
28 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (GJ)
CC:
To,
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 5 of 5