CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000983/SG/14962Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000983/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Sh. Brijmohan
27/160, habeli bahadur khaan
Maingate(Pathvari)
Agra(UP)-282004
Respondent : Mr. B. N. Bhatia,
CPIO & AGM,
Bank of India
Parliament Street Branch,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 13/08/2010
PIO replied on : 11/09/2010
First Appeal : 14/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : 19/10/2011
Second Appeal received on : 17/03/2011
Information Sought:
As a writ petition no. 10217/24 filed in the Allahabad High Court which relates to Bank of India
versus the appellant, appellant was placed as a peon after Subhash Chand, but he was misleadingly
ousted. Appellant wrote an application to the Bank Manager, for resuming his service. Appellant seeks
information regarding his appointment and removal from the services.
Reply:
Appellant was never appointed as a peon, and there is no such record in the office.
Grounds for the First Appeal/ Complaint:
Not satisfied with the Information given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The writ 10217/1994 was filed in 1994, record of which is not available. Authority is trying to find out
the particulars of the case. Getting information from the court is taking time. Information would be
provided to the appellant in 15-20 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing held on 30 September 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Sh. Brijmohan
Respondent: Mr. V K Gupta, CPIO & DZM, on Video Conferencing from NIC Studio Agra
“The CPIO states that information as per orders of the First Appellate Authority has been sent to the
Appellant on 23/09/2011. The PIO submits that the case is still pending in the court and the
information as directed by the FAA has been sent to the Appellant. The Commission observes that the
Page 1 of 4
FAA has ordered on 14/10/2010 that information would be provided within in 20 days to the
Appellant, instead the information has been sent to the Appellant on 23/09/2011.
The Respondent states that the then CPIO was Mr. B N Bhatia, Deputy Zonal Manager was
responsible for implementing the order of the First Appellate Authority, presently posted at Delhi”
Decision dated 30 September 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The information is claimed to have been sent to the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
then CPIO Mr. B N Bhatia 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 25 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).
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 showcause
hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on 25 October 2011:
The following were present:
Respondents: Mr. B. N. Bhatia, the then CPIO (presently AGM, Parliament Street Branch, New
Delhi) and Mr. Anil Kishor Srivastava, Deemed PIO & Senior Manager, Agra.
Mr. B. N. Bhatia has submitted written submissions to the Commission. It is relevant to mention that
show cause proceedings were initiated by the Commission against Mr. B. N. Bhatia, the then CPIO by
its order dated 30/09/2011 on account of non- compliance with the FAA’s order.
The Respondents stated that further to the FAA’s order dated 14/10/2010, the lawyer of the
Respondent- public authority had obtained the requisite information from the High Court on
20/11/2010 and sent it to the Respondent- public authority. Mr. Anil Kishor Srivastava submitted that
it is likely that this information was received at the Industrial Relations Department of the Respondent-
public authority and not by him or the then CPIO. Therefore, the Respondents presumed that the
lawyer had failed to obtain the requisite information from the High Court.
The Commission specifically asked the Respondents if they had followed- up with the lawyer in
relation to compliance with the FAA’s order. The Respondents admitted that neither of them had done
so. The Commission noted that Mr. B. N. Bhatia was transferred in August 2011. Mr. Bhatia states
that there was no new information to be provided to the Appellant. The Commission asked him
whether he had informed the Appellant accordingly as directed by the FAA. It was a duty of the PIOP
to ensure that information as per available records was sent to the Appellant. It is evident that no effort
was made to ensure that the information as per the order of the FAA was sent to the Appellant.
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
Page 2 of 4
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.
The FAA had given an order to obtain the information from the lawyer and provide it to the Appellant.
As per the admission of Mr. Bhatia the said information was obtained on 20/11/2010 but was not sent
to the Appellant. The then CPIO Mr. B. N. Bhatia states that the information was not provided to him
and hence he could not provide it to the Appellant. Ultimately the information was sent to the
Appellant on 23/09/2011 by the current PIO. It was a responsibility of the then PIO Mr. Bhatia to
ensure that the information as per the order of the FAA was sent to the Appellant. PIOs cannot claim
that information must come to their desk for it to be provided to the Appellants. It is a duty of the PIO
to ensure that information as per the Act or as per the orders of the FAAs is delivered to the
Appellants. In this matter the delay in providing the information after having obtained it has been for a
period much more than 100 days and no reasonable cause has been provided for this delay.
In view of this the Commission under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act imposes the maximum penalty of
`25000/- on Mr. B. N. Bhatia, the then CPIO for not providing the information to the Appellant as per
the order of the FAA.
Page 3 of 4
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. B. N. Bhatia, the then CPIO, Agra
presently AGM, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi. Since the delay in providing the
information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr.
B. N. Bhatia `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of India is directed to recover the
amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. B. N. Bhatia 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 `5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. B. N. Bhatia and remitted by
the 10th of every month starting from December 2011. The total amount of `25000 /-
will be remitted by 10th of April, 2012.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
25 October 2011
Copies to:
1- Chairman & Managing Director
Bank of India,
Star House, C-7, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Mr. V K Gupta
CPIO & DZM,
Bank of India,
Sanjay Place, LIC Building
Agra- 282002
Page 4 of 4