Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Shurendra Sharma vs Employees Provident Fund … on 5 October, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Shurendra Sharma vs Employees Provident Fund … on 5 October, 2010
               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building (Near Post Office)
                  Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                         Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                             Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001037/9635
                                               Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001037

Complainant                      :     Mr. Surendra Sharma
                                       S/o Sh Rajeshwar Sharma
                                       C/o F-180/G-1, Dilshad Colony
                                       Delhi-110095

Respondent                       : 1) Deemed PIO & Enforcement Officer
                                     Through CPIO & Regional PF Commissioner II
                                      EPFO, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour
                                      Sub Regional Office, Noida
                                      Nidhi Bhawan, A 2C Sector 24
                                      Noida- 201301, U.P.

                                     2) Deemed PIO & Section Supervisor
                                        Through CPIO & Regional PF Commissioner II
                                        EPFO, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour
                                        Sub Regional Office, Noida
                                        Nidhi Bhawan, A 2C Sector 24
                                        Noida- 201301, U.P.

                                     3) CPIO & Regional PF Commissioner II
                                        EPFO, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour
                                        Sub Regional Office, Noida
                                        Nidhi Bhawan, A 2C Sector 24
                                        Noida- 201301, U.P.

Events Chronologically:
   • RTI Application               -    22/02/2010
   • No information provided by the PIO
   • Complaint                     -    15/06/2010
   • Notice                        -    10/08/2010
      - Information to be provided
        to the Complainant before -     04/09/2010
      - Copy of information &
        PIO's explanation to be sent
        to the Commission before -      14/09/2010
   • Response of the PIO
      to the Notice                  -  13/09/2010
 Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Mr. Surendra Sharma had filed a RTI application with the CPIO,
O/o Regional PF Commissioner, Sector 24, Noida, on 22/02/2010 asking for certain
information. However, on not having received any information within the mandated time
period of 30 days, he filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the
Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice directing the CPIO, O/o
Regional PF Commissioner, EPFO, A 2C Sector 24, Noida, on 10/08/2010 to provide
information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the
information within the mandated time.

The Commission received a letter dated 13/09/2010 from the
CPIO & RPFC II, EPFO, Sub Regional Office, Noida, Nidhi Bhawan, Noida, wherein it was
stated that a reply to the said RTI Application was provided to the Complainant vide letter
dated 30/07/2010 and the information could not be provided earlier to the Complainant as it
was not readily available and it required the inspection of the records of the establishment in
concern. It was further submitted that the requisite information could not be provided by the
CPIO & RPFC II as he was dependant on other authorities in turn to provide the information
and it was also submitted that a delay ensued due to acute shortage of staff. From the
explanation for delay that was submitted by the CPIO & RPFC II, EPFO, Noida, it appears
that the Enforcement Officer and the Section Supervisor was in possession of the RTI
Application for a considerable period of time thereby amounting to a delay in responding to
the said Application. On perusal of documents, the Commission observes that the
information dated 30/07/2010 provided to the Complainant by the CPIO & RPFC II appears
to be satisfactory.

Decision:

The Complaint is allowed.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the Deemed PIO &
Enforcement Officer and the Deemed PIO & Section Supervisor are 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 deemed PIO’s
actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of the
RTI Act.

The CPIO & RPFC II, EPFO, Sub Regional Office, Noida, Nidhi Bhawan, U.P., is
hereby directed to provide this Commission on 29/11/2010 with the documentary evidence
showing that the delay has ensued due to the Deemed PIOs, Enforcement Officer and the
Section Supervisor as claimed by him in his response dated 13/09/2010.

The Deemed PIOs, i.e., Enforcement Officer and the Section Supervisor are hereby
directed to present themselves before the Commission on 29/11/2010 at 3:30 pm along with
their written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary
action be recommended against them under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further,
the deemed PIOs may serve this notice to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in
providing the information, and direct them to be present before the Commission along with
the deemed PIOs on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The deemed PIOs should also
bring along proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any. Further, the Deemed
PIOs are directed to bring along a copy of the reply that was provided to the Complainant by
them w.r.t. the said RTI Application along with its dispatch receipt.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
5th October, 2010

Encl: Copy of the CPIO reply dated 30/07/2010

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(JA)