Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000615
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 17 February 2011
Date of decision : 17 February 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Narender Singh
S/o. Shri Devlal Singh,
Tower Area Shakergarh,
Ward No. 09, Near Jal Nigam,
Janpad Allahabad, U.P.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office,
Dwarika Bhawan, 2nd Floor,
19A, Tagore Town,
Allahabad - 211 002.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri J. Bhattacharya, Manger (Vig) was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. In our order dated 6 January 2011, we had directed that the CPIO
concerned should appear before us and explain the reasons for the delay in
providing information to the information seeker. In this case, the RTI application
had been filed in the Shankargarh Branch on 22 July 2009. The Branch
Manager of this Branch had appeared before us on the last date of hearing and
had claimed that he had forwarded the RTI application to the CPIO concerned
for further action. Therefore, we had concluded that the reasons for the delay in
this case should be explained by the CPIO concerned.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000615
3. Today, during the hearing, Sri J Bhattacharya, the CPIO concerned,
appeared and, both in writing and orally submitted that the Branch Manager
had not forwarded the application at all and that he came to know about the
application only when the information seeker sent it to the CPIO directly. It was
only then that he had initiated action to get the record/ information from the
Branch. He produced some documents to prove that the Branch had not
forwarded the application to the office of the CPIO as had been claimed by the
then Branch Manager Sri Ram. Thus, it is quite clear that the Branch Manager
concerned had not presented the facts correctly and had tried to pass on the
blame to the CPIO.
4. After carefully considering the records produced before us and the
submissions made by the CPIO concerned and after keeping in mind the
submissions made earlier by Sri R K Ram, the then Branch Manager, we find
the latter totally responsible for the delay in the case. The RTI application had
been presented in the Branch on 22 July 2009. It should have been transferred
within five days of receiving it and the CPIO should have provided the
information within 30 days of receiving the RTI application. However, the
information was finally provided on 14 October 2009. Thus, there was a delay
of nearly 50 days in this case. Since the Branch Manager had not transferred
the application resulting in the consequent delay, he alone is responsible and is
therefore liable for imposition of penalty in terms of Section 20 (!) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. We impose a penalty of Rs 12,500 on SRI RK Ram, the
then Branch Manager at the rate of Rs 250 per day. We direct the present
CPIO to deduct this amount from the monthly salary of this officer in five equal
instalments beginning 1 April 2011 and remit it to the assistant registrar, CIC by
the way of demand draft drawn in favour of PAO, and payablel at New Delhi.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000615
5. The case is disposed off accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/000615