CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000963/9070Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000963
Complainant : Mr. Subhash Baghel
C/o Pratidhi
Room No. 38, Iind Floor,
Shalarpur, Police Station Complex,
Pusta Road, Ramesh Park,
Delhi - 110092.
Respondent : Mr. O. P. Bhatti,
Sr. Superintendent & PIO;
Social Welfare Department, GNCTD
GNLS Building Complex, Delhi Gate,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 11/05/2010
PIO replied : 26/06/2010
First Appeal filed on : Not filed
Complaint Received on : 02/07/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether ACB had approached the Govt. for prosecution/sanction of the officers No.
who were accused in FIR No. 18/08 and 19/08. If yes, then copy of the letter and
concerned file.
2. The time for which the file was pending before the concerned authority along with Not applicable in
name and designation of concerned officer and time frame for such sanction. view of point no. 1
3. Status of the departmental enquiry against the officials along with the details of No RDA has been
each official. recommended against
accused person till
then.
4. Time frame to finalize such departmental enquiry as per the Govt. rules. Not applicable in
view of point no.3.
5. Whether any official name had been recommended for the promotion to the post of Not related to ACB
Joint Director in the Department of Social Welfare during last one month. If yes,
then name of the official. Whether the same officer was involved in FIR No. 18/08/
and 24/06/2008. Whether such officers were eligible for promotion if any
criminal/departmental case was pending against them.
6. Whether those officers were posted in important/sensitive position within the As above.
department, if so, details of posting of each officer against their name. Details of
policy regarding posting of tainted officers.
Grounds for Complaint:
Non-receipt of proper information from the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 20 August 2010:
“The following were present
Complainant: Mr. R. M. Prasad and Ms. Sonam Gulati representing Mr. Subhash Baghel;
Respondent: Mr. R. K. Meena, Public Information Officer &Senior Superintendent/Dy. Director; Mr. O. P.
Bhatti, Senior Superintendent (Vigilance);
Page 1 of 5
The complainant states that most of the queries should have been addressed by Department of Social
Welfare to whom the RTI Application has been sent. He states that instead providing information which was
held by them they unnecessarily transferred the RTI application to the Anti Corruption Branch and the
Department of Vigilance. He also states that he was not informed about this transfer and was informed about
this transfer only on 05/08/2010. Considering the information provided to the complainant from the
different PIOs the following deficiencies have been found:
1- Query-3: The PIO Mr. O. P. Bhatti from Social Welfare has informed the complainant that no
departmental inquiry has been initiated against the accused persons. The complainant has earlier
been given information in an earlier RTI application by Mr. K. K. Bhalla, Senior Superintend
(Vigilance) that inquiry proceedings have been ordered by the competent authority. Thus there is
an evident contradiction in the two statements. Mr. O. P. Bhatti will also provide an affidavit
stating that no departmental inquiry has been initiated against the accused persons.
2- Query-5: In response to the complainant’s query any officers name has been recommended of
promotion to the post of Joint Director, the information provided by the PIO (Admin)
Department of social of Welfare on 31 May 2010 is, “Not yet”. The Complainant states that this
statement is false. The PIO (Admin) will provide an affidavit to this effect to the Complainant.
The complainant has pointed out to the Commission that though the application was completely transferred
by PIO Social Welfare, the FAA of Anti Corruption Bureau had sought to put the responsibility of filing the
first appeal on the complainant against the PIO of Social Welfare. This position is now correct and if the
PIO of ACB felt that some queries needed to be answered by the PIO Social Welfare he should have
transferred it back.
It is apparent that the information has been received very late on 21/07/2010 from the PIO of social welfare
department. The PIO of Social Welfare Department has most of the information but instead of providing the
information transferred it unnecessarily.
It appears that Mr. K. K. Bhalla the then PIO has provided false information to the Complainant.”
Commission’s Decision dated 20 August 2010:
“The Complaint is allowed.
The PIO Mr. O. P. Bhatti is directed to provide the information on point-1 (query-3)
as directed above to the complainant before 30 August 2010.
Mr. R. K. Meena, Public Information Officer &Senior Superintendent/Dy. Director will
provide an affidavit as stated above on point-2 to the complainant before 05 September
2010.
It appears that Mr. K. K. Bhalla the then PIO has provided false information to the Complainant. 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.
Mr. K. K. Bhalla will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 01 October 2010 at
2.30pm 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.
Page 2 of 5
The Commission has also observed that Mr. O. P. Bhatti is responsible for not supplying the
complete, required information within 30 days as required by the law. 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.
Mr. O. P. Bhatti will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 01 October 2010 at
2.30pm 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.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 01 October 2010:
The following were present
Complainant: Mr. R. M. Prasad representing Mr. Subhash Baghel;
Respondent: Mr. K. K. Bhalla the then PIO presently Sr. Superintendent, Dept. of Woman & Child
Development, 1, Canning Lane, K. G. Marg, New Delhi; Mr. O. P. Bhatti, Sr. Superintendent & present
PIO;
Mr. O.P. Bhatti and Mr. R. K. Meena have defied the order of the Commission to provide the
affidavits before 30 August 2010 and 05 September 2010 respectively. They have only given a statement on
a simple paper to the appellant. Mr. O. P. Bhatti was asked by the Commission why he did not give the
affidavit he only state that he will now provide the affidavit on 04 October 2010 to the appellant. Mr. Bhatti
was asked for reasons for defying the order of the Commission. Mr. Bhatti is able to give no reasons to
justify not giving the affidavit as ordered by the Commission.
Mr. K. K. Bhalla has in an earlier RTI application informed the appellant that, “inquiry proceedings have
been ordered by the competent authority in one case involving Mr. R. K. Sharma Mr. Mahesh Sharma and
Mrs. Rajeshwari Chauhan.” The appellant states that this information appears to be false since Mr. Bhatti in
the present RTI application has stated that no inquiry proceedings have been ordered. Mr. K. K. Bhalla is
directed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim before the Commission on 18
October 2010 at 05.00PM. If he does not produce any evidence the Commission will assume that he has
given false information. Mr. Bhalla is directed to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) and
disciplinary action against Section 20(2) should not be recommended against him if he do not produce any
evidence that the information provide by him was not false.
The Commission also issues a showcause notice to Mr. R. K. Meena, Public Information
Officer &Senior Superintendent/Dy. Director on 18 October 2010 at 05.00PM. To
showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on him for failing to
comply with the order of the Commission.
Mr. K. K. Bhalla is directed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his
claim before the Commission on 18 October 2010 at 05.00PM.
The appellant also claims that the information provided by him is false. The appellant is directed to send his
reasons for claiming that the information is false to respondent and the Commission.
The Commission has asked Mr. O. P. Bhatti to showcause why he did not provide the affidavit as per the
order of the Commission on 30 August 2010. Since he has given no reasonable cause for not providing the
information as ordered by the Commission. The Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Since he has promised to give the affidavit to the appellant on 04/10/2010 the
Page 3 of 5
Commission imposes a penalty on Mr. O. P. Bhatti at `250 per day of day for 34 days of delay i.e. `250/- X
34 days = `8500/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this as a fit case for
levying penalty on Mr. O. P. Bhatti. Since the delay in providing the correct information has
been of 34 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. O. P. Bhatti `8,500/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `8,500/-
from the salary of Mr. O. P. Bhatti 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 `4250/ per month every month from the salary of
Mr. O. P. Bhatti and remitted by the 10th November 2010 and 10th December 2010. The total
amount of `8,500/- will be remitted by 10th of December, 2010.
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
01 October 2010
(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
3- Mr. R. K. Meena
Public Information Officer &
Senior Superintendent/Dy. Director
Social Welfare Department, GNCTD
GNLS Building Complex, Delhi Gate,
Delhi.
4- Mr. K. K. Bhalla
the then PIO presently Sr. Superintendent,
Page 4 of 5
Dept. of Woman & Child Development,
1, Canning Lane, K. G. Marg, New Delhi;
Page 5 of 5