RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Penalty
| S.No. | CIC CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
CIC/ONGCL/C/2018/620437-BJ+ (268.30 KB) 
|
20 Dec, 2019 | Mr. Varun Krishna Vs. CPIO (Western Offshore Unit) & GM (HR), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Mumbai Information Sought The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points pertaining to Western Offshore Unit, Mumbai, the number of RTI applications received between 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2018; number of deemed refusal u/s 7(2) shown by PIO i.e. not replied within 30 days and the name & designation of officials accountable for the said deemed refusal. Decision With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on: 01.06.2012) wherein it was held: “ 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute.” Similarly, the following observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter: “17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.” Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under: “Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ……The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it.” |
| 2 |
CIC/CBODT/A/2018/617808-BJ (191.12 KB)
|
14 Nov, 2019 | Mr. T. Ganeshamoorthi Vs. CPIO -DCIT-OSD (ITA-I), D/o Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi – 110001 Information Sought The Appellant vide his RTI application sought clarifications whether withdrawal of EPF & EPS is exempted from Income Tax since it is beyond the control of the employee, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.09.2017, directed the CPIO to provide information as available /applicable under the RTI Act, 2005 and/or take necessary action as per the provisions of the Act. Decision The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions available on record, the Commission directs the FAA to seek explanation of the CPIO and initiate suitable disciplinary action for not providing information to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. A suitable response should be sent to the Appellant in respect of the RTI queries raised by him within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Action taken against the CPIO should be intimated to the Appellant with a copy endorsed to the Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction. |
| 3 |
CIC/HSCCI/A/2018/127462-BJ-FINAL (222.80 KB)
|
07 Oct, 2019 | Mr. Anil Khanna Vs. CPIO, HSCC (India) Ltd., Corporate Office, E – 6(A), Sector – 1, Noida – 201301 Information Sought The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the award letter dated 12.01.2015 issued to “M/s The Creators” for Development of area near Main Entrance Gate, Facade improvement of Dr R.P.Centre & CN Centre at AIIMS, New Delhi and issues related thereto. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Decision “.....The circumstances under which the information was withheld from the appellant leads to a strong inference that the CPIO has denied the information on a ground which has no relevance either to the facts-in- issue or the law. The RTI-application has been handled casually and in a most perfunctory way. The manner in which the RTI application has been disposed of by the CPIO is evidence enough that this he has done knowingly. 6. It is not disputed by the petitioners that information as sought was not furnished at all till the proceedings were initiated by the CIC. In fact, the final order of the CIC also records this. In these circumstances, the argument made about the fact that the lift had stopped operating since 2007, cannot be termed as satisfying the requirements of the Application. 7. To pointed queries, specific answers with relevant particulars have to be given; in case such information is not available, even that too has to be disclosed. Neither course of action was adopted in this case.” Moreover, despite clear and specific directions of the Commission neither was the complete information provided to the Appellant nor did Mr. Gyanesh Pandey, Director, HSCC India Ltd attend the hearing before the Commission which amounts to non-compliance of the order of the Commission The Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Sri G Basavaraju v. Smt Arundathi & Anr.’, CCC. No. 525 of 2008 (Civil) order dated 27.01.2009 wherein it was held as under: “9. Section 20 of the RTI Act provides for penalties. It confers powers on the Commission on the basis of which it can enforce its orders. The powers of the Commission to entertain and decide the Complaints, necessarily shows that, the Commission has the necessary power to adjudicate the grievances and decide the matters brought before it, in terms of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The Legislative will in incorporating Section 20 in the RTI Act, conferring power on the Commission to impose the penalties, by necessary implication is to enable the Commission to do everything that is indispensible for the purpose of carrying out the purposes in view contemplated under the Act.” Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in light of the decisions cited above, the Commission finds that as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, this is a fit case for levying a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on Mr. B. K. Menon, DGM & PIO for not providing the information to the Complainant within the stipulated time frame. The FAA, HSCC (India) Ltd., Noida is directed to recover the amount of Rs 5,000/- from the salary of Mr. B. K. Menon, DGM & PIO on receipt of this order and remit the same by way of Demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer, CAT” payable at New Delhi and send the same to Dy. Registrar, (CR-II) email: dyregcr2-cic@gov.in, Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. Furthermore, it is appalling to note that the FAA had also not acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore is advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 with due diligence and care. Moreover, despite specific direction from the Commission in the last hearing held on 20.06.2019, Shri Gyanesh Pandey, Director HSCC (India) Ltd did not appear before the Commission which exhibits complete disrespect and disregard to the directions of the Commission and the amenability to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. |
| 4 |
CIC/NTPCO/C/2018/116584 (722.00 KB)
|
25 Sep, 2019 | Sanjeev Kapoor Vs. CPIO, NTPC Limited, Corporate Centre, NTPC Bhawan, New Delhi Information Sought A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the then Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), NTPC Limited, Corporate Centre, NTPC Bhawan, New Delhi in compliance of the Commission’s Order No. CIC/NTPCO/C/2018/116584 dated 06.05.2019. The CPIO was directed to explain as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him. Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the Show Cause Notice was issued against the respondent as, prime-facie, incorrect information was furnished to the respondent stating that the letters/representations dated 28.08.2017, 02.06.2017, 10.03.2017 and 15.06.2017 were not received in the respondent’s Faridabad office, whereas, the same were received by CMD, Faridabad by mail. Further, GM, Faridabad had also acknowledged the receipt of the same, which led to a presumption that incorrect reply in response to the RTI application had been provided to the appellant. The Commission after considering the submission of the respondent, notes that in view of the typographical error in the reply dated 13.11.2017 to the RTI application, it is apparent that there was no conscious or deliberate attempt to withhold the information sought by the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that information was malafidely withheld by the respondent as due information was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 12.07.2017. In view of this, the Show Cause Notice issued to Shri Shantimoy Nandan, Asstt. General Manager, CPIO, NTPC Limited, Corporate Centre, NTPC Bhawan, New Delhi is hereby dropped. |
| 5 |
CCFLT/A/2018/125437 (140.00 KB)
|
19 Sep, 2019 | Lakhan Kumar Vs. CPIO, Central Coalfields Limited, Jharkhand Information Sought The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), N.K Area, Ranchi, Jharkhand seeking information on three points pertaining to coal loaded rakes despatched daily from the railway siding K.D(old) operating under CCL, N.K Area from 2011-12 to 2017- 18 including, inter-alia, (i) details (dates, weight, billed grades, sampling analysis grade etc.) of coal loaded rakes despatched daily from the railway siding K.D(old) operating under CCL, N.K Area from 2011-12 to 2017-18.; (ii) details of total payment done by CCL, N.K Area for each of the billed grade coal rake dispatched up to date along with the rate finalized and; (iii) if the sampling analysis was not done then the reasons for the same on affidavit along with details of the officials responsible for the same and what disciplinary action was taken against the guilty officials. Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the RTI application was sent by Speed Post vide tracking no. RJ 069973880 IN. Hence, it can be presumed that the RTI application was delivered to the respondent’s office. In view of this, it is imperative to ascertain the facts leading to the misplacement of the RTI application dated 15.12.2017 filed by the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the First Appellate Authority, Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), N.K Area, Ranchi, Jharkhand to inquire into the matter of the ‘missing’ RTI application and to ascertain as to whether the RTI application was actually not received or the CPIO had taken that plea to deny information to the appellant. The FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for the misplacement of the RTI application. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as to the appellant. The Commission further directs the respondent to provide information, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Commission also directs the Registry of this Bench to send a copy of the appellant’s RTI application to the respondent. |
| 6 |
CIC/BOMAH/A/2017/167924 (753.70 KB)
|
22 Apr, 2019 | Sagar Vijayrao Thube Vs. CPIO: Bank of Maharashtra, Zonal Office, Aurangabad Information Sought A Show Cause Notice was issued to the CPIO, Bank of Maharashtra, Zonal Office, Aurangabad, in compliance of the Commission’s order no. CIC/BOMAH/A/2017/167924 dated 25.02.2019 for not furnishing the information to the appellant. The CPIO was directed to submit an explanation as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him. Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the respondent has not provided the information till date despite the show cause notice and categorical direction issued to him. Even today the respondent is coming with an excuse that he needs extra time to provide the information. It is pertinent to mention that one year ten months has elapsed and the respondent is still seeking additional time to provide the information. On prima facie it appears that there is deliberate denial and mala fide on part of the then CPIO and the present CPIO in withholding the information. Hence, the interest of justice demands imposition of penalty on the respondent for withholding the information illegally and contravening the provisions of the RTI Act. Accordingly the Commission taking a lenient view imposes a token penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) on Mr. Sonaje R. D. Asst. the then CPIO & General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Bengaluru for the reasons mentioned above. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) shall be deducted by the Public Authority from the salary of Mr. Sonaje R. D. Asst. the then CPIO & General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Bengaluru by way of demand draft drawn in favour of “PAO, CAT”, New Delhi and forward the demand drafts addressed to Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: dyregcr2-cic@gov.in Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The aforesaid penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 24.06.2019. |
| 7 |
CIC/PNBNK/A/2017/140407 (684.56 KB)
|
22 Apr, 2019 | Rajendra Kumar Vs. CPIO: Punjab National Bank, Alwar. Information Sought A Show Cause Notice was issued to the then CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Alwar, in compliance of the Commission’s order no. CIC/PNBNK/A/2017/140407 dated 28.09.2018 for not furnishing the information to the appellant. The CPIO was directed to submit an explanation as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him. Decision It appears that the CPIOs are in oblivion of the provisions of the RTI Act vide last order dated 28.9.2018, a show cause notice was issued to the CPIO for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him. In spite of the clear instructions contained in the notice dated 5.3.2019 they have failed to upload the action taken and now have come before the Commission with the plea that the reply has already been given to the appellant. The CPIO is unable to explain as to why they could not make the reply available and the delay in reply, if any has been given, after a lapse of over 3 years. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case including absence of the appellant, and perusal of records, feels that it is a fit case wherein a penalty of Rs.20,000/- may be imposed on the then CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Alwar. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall be deducted by the Public Authority from the salary of the, then CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Alwar, as on 26.09.2016 by way of demand draft drawn in favour of “PAO, CAT”, New Delhi in 5 equal monthly installments and forward the demand drafts addressed to Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: dyregcr2-cic@gov.in Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first installment should reach the Commission by 24.06.2019 and the last installment should reach by 25.10.2019. |
| 8 |
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/134080 (484.04 KB)
|
07 Mar, 2019 | Shri Vipin Yadav Vs. PIO/ Tehsildar-(HQ), O/o. the Land Acquisition Collector-(South-West), Government of NCT of Delhi) Information Sought The Appellant vide RTI application dated 22.07.2016 sought certified copy of the N.O.C having no. 5283, 5352, 5344 applied by R.C. Aggarwal in respect of 1/9 share of Khasra No. 978(4-9), 905min(1-0), 906 min(3-6), 908(6-10) and 909(2018) Estate of Village Rajokri, New Delhi. Decision After hearing submissions of the parties and perusal of records, the Commission is taken aback at the poor response and handling of the case at the office of the PIO/Tehsildar (HQ)/Land Acquisition Collector. The order of the FAA/ADM - Dr.Pranjal J. Hazarika has been completely violated by the PIO/Land Acquisition Collector. Sh. R K Meena-SO, LAC and Sh. Jitender Kumar – Sr. Asst. present in today’s hearing have submitted that the following officials held office between 2017 till date: 1. Sh. S K Rawat – Tehsildar (HQ) 2017 2. Sh. R K Pandey – SO/LAC-PIO 2018 3. Sh. R K Meena – current PIO/SO-LAC since 2018 In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the Commission hereby directs as follows: a) The case is remanded to the current FAA/ADM for ensuring compliance of the FAA’s order dated 23.01.2017. The FAA shall call for explanation from the aforementioned PIOs for causing deliberate obstruction in the flow of information and non-compliance of the FAA’s order dated 23.01.2017, mentioned above. Enquiry Report be submitted before the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order; b) The current PIO/SO-LAC – Sh. R K Meena shall provide complete information, in response to the queries of the appellant, as already directed by the FAA vide order dated 23.01.2017, within two weeks of submission of documents establishing title to the property, by the appellant. Compliance report shall be submitted by the current PIO/SO- LAC within three weeks of receipt of this order, failing which appropriate action, as per law, shall be initiated. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. |
| 9 |
CIC/KVSAN/A/2017/164873-BJ (173.16 KB)
|
24 Dec, 2018 | Mr. R. S. Rai Vs. CPIO & Assistant commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jabalpur Region, GCF Estate, Behind Science College, Jabalpur – 482011 Information Sought The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the certified copy of the leave application, medical certificate and details of charge taken by Mr. R.S. Roy TGT for the period from 18.10.2016 to 21.10.2016, result analysis of Class X ‘A’ and ‘B’ for the period from 2007-2008, 2009-2010 to 2014-2015, etc. Decision “ 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for oneor the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken bythe PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause noticeunder Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., wherethe PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide theinformation, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information ordestroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. Thiswas certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in everyother case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure onthem. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with anindependent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for thefuture development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, andmay lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities andthe CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutionscreated by the RTI Act in disrepute.” Similarly, the following observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC &Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter: “17. This Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, thelack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and theAppellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature ofinformation sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach ofthe second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, thePetitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.” Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under: “Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and directpayment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was deniedmalafidely. ……The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it.” The Appellant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly. |
| 10 |
CIC/DOEAF/C/2017/105166/ISPNR (170.71 KB)
|
06 Aug, 2018 | Ms Rashi Agrawal Vs CPIO, SPMCIL NEW DELHI, CPIO INDIAN SECURITY PRESS NASHIK ISSUE : Non receipt of reply from the CPIO. DECISION : The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to RTI applications. The Commission directed the Public Authority to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the complainant within a period of 30 days. |
| 11 |
CIC/MOENF/C/2017/178184 (527.04 KB)
|
30 Jul, 2018 | Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, MOEF and Climate Change ISSUE :The appellant sought information relating to “conflicting rules of environment – Ministry aand MIDC puts entrepreneurs in problem” on fourteen points. The appellant was not satisfied by the reply of the CPIO and the FAA on grounds of the same being improper/incomplete. The appellant also sought for compensation for the detriment caused to him for the delay in supply of information to him. DECISION : The CPIO is directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission, duly endorsed to the appellant that in respect of para 7 of the stated RTI application complete reply was provided vide replies dated 27/6/18 and 17/4/18. Otherwise he should furnish a revised consolidated reply within 10 days from the receipt of this order to the appellant on this point. The Commission is of the opinion that a token amount of Rs 1000/- should be paid as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused to him. This amount is to be paid by the Public Authority, MOEF and Climate Change. |
| 12 |
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/102584 (190.76 KB)
|
25 Jun, 2018 | BK Porwal Vs PIO, Deptt of Posts ISSUE :The applicant, facing an inquiry for sexual harassment, requested for documents relating to the inquiry. The CPIO rejected the request under sections 8(1)(d) and (g). DECISION : By denying the information the appellant was not only harassed by the public authority but also by the CPIO. While the public authority denied him the documents which he was entitled under SHW Act of 2013, the CPIO denied them under RTI Act. …..the Commission concludes that denial of information to the appellant was without any reasonable cause and hence liable for maximum penalty of Rs 25,000/- The Commission also finds it a fit case to recommend the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO. |
| 13 |
CIC/SH/C/2016/000310 (59.99 KB)
|
19 Jan, 2018 | A Gopi Krishna Vs CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Visakhapatnam ISSUE :The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO did not respond to his RTI application. The respondent submitted that the CPIO did not receive the complainant’s RTI application and therefore information could not be provided to him within the stipulated time. DECISION : As per the submission of the complainant the RTI application was handed over to the bank ‘by hand’ by the brother of the appellant. The bank did not accept it, thereafter the appellant sent it by post to the respondent. The Commission directed the FAA, Syndicate Bank, Visakhapatnam, to inquire into the matter as to whether the RTI application was received in the branch and if so, what action was taken on the RTI application. The FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers responsible for the misplacement of the RTI application. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. |
| 14 |
CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299248/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299253/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299257/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299258/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300147/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300149/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300150/BJ CIC/DITIN/C/2016/299250/BJ (86.40 KB)
|
31 Jul, 2017 | Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Jharkhand The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding total number of CAs and Advocates against whom cases had been filed before their disciplinary authorities for cancellation of practicing licenses, list of such cases, etc. The Commission observed that the responses provided by the CPIO were in total contradiction and disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission, directs the CCIT, Ranchi to conduct an enquiry either by himself or through a nominee officer of senior rank and send an enquiry report to the Commission. It was observed that the action taken by the CPIO in relation to the information sought needs to be examined carefully by the CCIT, Ranchi so that the fundamental right of the information seeker is fully respected and protected. |
| 15 |
CIC/CBODT/A/2016/304262-BJ (92.02 KB)
|
31 Jul, 2017 | Mr. Goutam Kumar Das Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Bhubaneswar The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding complete details of minutes with regard to the Review DPC proceedings based on Supreme Court Judgement in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar vs. Union of India. The Commission directs the Respondent (ITO-Legal) to facilitate inspection of records on a mutually convenient date and time within 15 days. |