Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/AT/A/2010/001059SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 15 November 2011
Date of decision : 15 November 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri V V Lakhlani
B2, Saptak Apartment, 101,
Azad Society, B/H, Sahjanand College,
Ambavadi, Ahmedabad - 380 015.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, O/o. the Accountant General (A&E),
Gujarat, Near Ishwar Bhuvan,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri S M Parmar, CPIO was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present in the Ahmedabad studio of the NIC. We
heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought the copies of a number of documents relating
to the disciplinary proceedings finalised against two categories of officers during
a specific period. The CPIO had provided the information nearly 3 months
beyond the stipulated period.
CIC/AT/A/2010/001059SM
4. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the delay occurred
because they had consulted the head office for its advice on whether
information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings should be disclosed or
not. They further submitted that the advice of the head office was received late
and, consequently, there was this delay in finally disclosing the information. In
view of the fact that the Appellant had not sought any information regarding
ongoing cases but had sought information only in respect of the cases already
finalised, that is, completed, there was no need to consult the head office in the
first place. Even if there was some consultation needed, it should have been
completed within the stipulated period or, at least, the CPIO should have shown
the courtesy of intimating the Appellant about the likely delay. Nothing of the
kind was done. Thus, the Appellant was deprived of the information for a long
period of time.
5. This delay renders the CPIO concerned liable for imposition of penalty in
terms of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Before deciding on
the penalty, we would like to hear his explanation. Therefore, we direct the
present CPIO to forward a copy of this order to the officer who, as the CPIO at
the relevant time, had failed to provide the information in time with the further
direction that the said officer should appear before the Commission (Room No.
306, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi –
110 066) on 1 December 2011 at 12.00 noon and offer his explanation.
Needless to say, if he fails to offer any reasonable explanation for this delay, we
will proceed to impose the penalty in terms of the above provision.
6. The desired information has already been disclosed even though late
and, therefore, there is no more information to be provided.
CIC/AT/A/2010/001059SM
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. 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/AT/A/2010/001059SM