CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000612/3315
Appeal No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000612
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mrs. Rashmi Mishra,
W/o Santosh Kumar Mishra, C/o Shree Vinod
Kumar Upadhyay, Veladula Kharraghat, Near
Manas Bhawan, Raigarh (Chhatishgarh)
Respondent : Mr Hafis Mohd.
Senior Divisional Executive Officer & PIO
South East Central Railway,
Divisional Office, Personnel Deptt.,
Bilaspur - 495004
RTI application filed on : 06/10/2008
PIO replied : 20/10/2008
First appeal filed on : 09/11/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 05/12/2008
Second Appeal received on : 27/03/2009
Information sought:-
The Appellant had asked in RTI application about allowance (monthly details) from
the year 2005 to the date of application, details of bonus and its amount, details of attendance
and withdrawal of money and the whether the deptt. had provided any accommodation to Mr.
Santosh Mishra.
The PIO replied:
The PIO informed the appellant that any information related to Mr. Santosh Mishra
couldn’t be provided without the proper consent of the related person as it would be against
of RTI Act-2005 and said that a letter had been sent to the concern person for his consent.
Later PIO replied to the appellant vide letter dt. 24.11.2008 that Mr. Santosh Mishra has
asked the deptt not to disclose any information regarding his personal information.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The First Appellant Authority ordered, ” Shree Santosh Kumar Mishra has informed
this office that his personal information should not be given to anyone. So this office is
unable to furnish your desired information about this you have been made aware vide letter
dt. 24.11.2008.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Ashish Upadhya on behalf of Mrs. Rashmi Mishra
Respondent: Mr. Hafis Mohamed, PIO
The PIO refused to give the information claiming that it’s a third party information and after
the third parties objection the PIO claimed that it was covered under Section 8(1)(j). Details
of the emoluments given to a public servant have to be soumoto disclosed under Section 4.
Hence the claim that these could be exempt under Section 8(1)(j)is absolutely wrong. The
appellant also shows that earlier the same information had been provided in 2007 by then
PIO. This indicates that the current PIO has refused the information without any reasonable
cause and perhaps with malafide intention.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be provide to the appellant before 30 May 2009.
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. 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 02 July 2009 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.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19th May, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)