welcome to Penalty | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
31	CIC/VS/A/2013/002030/SH (Show Cause Notice) CIC/SH/A/2014/003034 (226.85 KB)	24 May, 2016	Jaiprakesh Upadhaya Vs. Central Bank of India, Saharsa Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not providing the information within specified period of thirty days The Commission held even though there was delay on CPIO's part in sending a reply to the Appellant, there is nothing on record to show a deliberate or malafide intent on his part in not sending a reply to the Appellant in time. The Commission further held that in case collection of information is likely to take more time, an interim reply should be sent to all concerned, informing them that the information is being collected.
32	CIC/KY/C/2016/000008 CIC/KY/A/2016/000009 (178.07 KB)	22 Apr, 2016	Akshay Kr. Malhotra vs DDA, New Delhi Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty. The Commission held that the petitioner has filed petitions in composite nature whereby, the petitioner has sought relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act and also the penal action along with disciplinary action against the respondents under sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act. Thus, these petitions may be legally construed as composite petitions. The composite petition of such nature is not legally tenable, simply because, if the relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) is allowed on such composite petition, the incorporation of section 19(3) of the RTI Act would be rendered as redundant and meaningless. The relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/ s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub-clause (1) & sub-clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. Composite petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.
33	CIC/RM/A/2014/004572-SA CIC/RM/A/2014/004573-SA (357.65 KB)	21 Apr, 2016	Anil Kumar Gupta vs National Institute of Open Schooling Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty. The Commission held that the NIOS has breached the law and the settled principles of natural justice by allowing party like Joint Director, to hear appeal of the appellant as FAA resulting in unjustified and biased The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavor should not participate in arising from such a decision. There is a strong prima facie case that the concerned Joint Director might tampered with the documents to wrongfully to show that the appellant was not performing well. The Commission directed the CPIO and the concerned Joint Director to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for misleading the Commission and making allegations that the appellant was misusing the Act. The Commission also directed the concerned Joint Director to show cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for hearing first appeal being an interested party and directed the public authority to explain why compensation of Rs. 50,000/ should not be paid to the appellant.
34	CIC/RM/C/2014/000063/SA (255.24 KB)	04 Apr, 2016	R G. Nangia Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information. Delay explained satisfactorily. The Commission held that the appellant is misusing RTI to harass the authority because he was removed from the service. He has every right to challenge his termination before appropriate forum. Having heard the submission of appellant and PIO the Commission found the explanation satisfactory and dropped the penalty proceedings.
35	CIC/SA/A/2015/001769 (262.30 KB)	11 Mar, 2016	Nand Lal vs Department of Legal Affairs Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty for not providing the information. The Commission held that the Public authority and the notary are under a legal duty to protect and preserve such records/registers. If records are truly eaten away the termite, they owe an explanation to the people why they failed to prevent it. They also have a duty to give (i) list of records damaged by termite; (ii) list of those survived termite attack; and (iii) partially damaged records. If termite attack is claimed by the notary public, the genuineness of same has to be verified by the regulatory. If it was found to be wrongful claim the public authority should have taken necessary action against persons responsible for same. Section 4(I)(a) and (b) of the RTI Act imposed an obligation on notary and legal affairs department (public authority) to publish three lists. The Commission considered Smt. Meena Sharma as deemed PIQ and directed her to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against her for not facilitating inspection of records through public authority as ordered by First appellate The Commission also directed Smt. Meena Sharma to furnish the certified copies of extracts from the notary registers as sought under the public authority and to explain why Commission should not direct the Department of Legal Affairs and her to give suitable compensation to the appellant.
36	CIC/SA/A/2015/002048 (365.56 KB)	29 Feb, 2016	Jagdish Prasad Vs. Revenue Department Section 19(8)(b) Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty the Commission held that the public authority has a duty to inform the voter appellant why he could not get the voter card on their own. They did not choose to answer even after he legally sought under RTI Act. They failed to convince the Commission why should they transfer the request instead of answering it. It is clear that their inaction and non-response to RTI application is violation of both of his rights right to information and right to vote. The voter has right to information about action on his application for voter card and also RTI under RTI Act. Article 325 of Indian Constitution categorically mandates that there shall be no discrimination in inclusion into the electoral rolls. By negligence or inaction, the Election Office has not included the applicant's voter card in the electoral list and thus his constitutional right is breached. The Election Office to showcause why suitable compensation should not be ordered to be paid by them to the applicant.
37	CIC/KY/A/2015/000857 (0 bytes)	22 Feb, 2016	A. M. Attar Vs. Haj Committee of India, Mumbai Section 19(3) Second appeal to the Commission Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty Section 20(2) Recommendation of disciplinary action against the CPIO Composite Petition the Commission held that the relief provided under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub clause (1) & sub clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. In the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act to file the Composite Petition, the instant composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
38	CIC/MP/A/2015/901418 (90.67 KB)	10 Feb, 2016	Nihar Panda vs National Commission for Women, New Delhi Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty The Commission held that the copy of the review petition filed by the NCW before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of section 8(1)() of the RTI Act as the appellant was not a party to the petition and the disclosure of which would reveal the particulars of the petitioner's wife, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The Commission further held that it disagrees with the decision of the respondents and observed that the appellant's RTI application was replied to by the FAA at appellate stage. The CPIO has failed Right to Information Reporter - 2016 May to respond to the RTI application, therefore, issued show cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO to explain the reasons why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for not responding the RTI application.
39	CIC/SH/A/2014/002977 CIC/SH/A/2014/002847 (312.87 KB)	28 Jan, 2016	Bablu Chatterjee VS. National Library, Belvedere Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty the Commission held that the appellant returned the replies sent to him, even though in a delayed manner, and insists on imposition of penalty on the CPIO. It would appear that rather than getting the information, he is interested in getting the CPIO penalised. Nothing has been placed before us to establish a malafide intent on the part of the CPIO to delay or deny the information. Not a fit case where penalty can be imposed upon CPIO.
40	CIC/SA/C/2014/000458 (298.23 KB)	26 Mar, 2015	R.K. Jain Vs. National Green Tribunal The appellant sought date-wise details of tickets purchased/produced for the air travel/rail travel by National Green Tribunal for a particular period. The CPIO requested the Complainant to come for inspection with prior notice of 15 days. The Commission held that the inspection of the record is not the substitute of providing the information. While offering the inspection of records the CPIO has illegally and unauthorisedly put a condition of giving 15 days prior notice by the Complainant. The Commission directed the CPIO to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed against him for the violations of RTI Act invoking section 20 and recommended the disciplinary action against him.
41	CIC/SA/A/2014/000155 (471.72 KB)	16 Jan, 2015	Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Deptt for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC, Govt of NCT of Delhi The appellant sought to know the action taken on the report of Delhi Lokayuktha indicting former Chief Minister and some other Ministers of Government of Delhi for spending public money on advertisements and certified copies of certain other documents. The CIC directed the Union of India and Government of Delhi to disclose its policy under Section 4 of the Act, on recommendations of Prof. Madhava Menon Committee and Lokayuktha of Delhi regarding usage of photos of political leaders in advertisements issued by the State. As the disclosure of information involves policy decision to be taken by the Higher authorities in Government, it is not just and proper to penalise the PIO for non-disclosure of policy, who does not have any role in decision making process and in view of the observations of Delhi Lokayuktha not to issue advise/recommendation to the lower level officers, the Commission finds no ground for imposing penalty on the PIO.
42	CIC/DS/A/2011/002565 (207.46 KB)	08 Jan, 2013	Sr. Ravindra Nath Khera V.S. United Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigah/Chennai(Sh. Roop Singh Singh Azad, CPIO & Sh. B.L. NArsimha Rao, CPIO/FAA- through videoconferencing) Issue of Show Cause notice for not suppling the information- the appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, Kurukshetra, seeking status in respect of the second claim in policy – the CPIO had directed appellant to access information directly form the TPA (who by itself is not a public authority) whereas the representative of the TPA had informed the appellant that information can be disclosed only at the behest of the insurer and cannot be parted with to any other person- The Commission held that the CPIO has denied information to the appellant without any application of mind when he is fully aware of the fact that the TPA is a creature of the Company and created through an agreement/contract between the two parties for rendering service to policy holders on behalf of the Company. Therefore, it is only natural to conclude that all documents held by the TPA pertaining to the medi claim policies can be accessed by the insurer. Show cause notice issued to CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed.
43	CIC/LS/A/2011/002896/BS/0737 (87.16 KB)	04 Oct, 2012	Mr. Nirmal Kumar vs CPIO BSNL The Commission held that the CPIO is unable to explain why even an interim reply covering partial information could not be sent to the appellant within the mandated time of 30 days. No reasonable grounds has been offered by the CPIO for not providing timely information. Penalty imposed. Section 7(1) Section 20 (1)
44	CIC/LS/A/2011/000408/BS/0296 (53.48 KB)	12 Jul, 2012	Mr. Desh Raj vs CPIO BSNL The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO – the CPIO in his reply stated that the information as desired by the applicant was sought from the custodian of the information i.e. Executive Engineer. It has been intimated by Executive Engineer that due to acute shortage of staff and the information being old, the office is unable to supply the desired information. The CPIO added that presently he is in a position to supply only some documents requested in the RTI application as the other documents/information are missing from the records. The Commission held that it is unable to accept the contention of the CPIO/other officers the remaining records containing the information are missing. The Commission concludes that all the concerned officers are jointly responsible for the delay in providing the information. Accordingly the Commission has decided to divide the total penalty amount of Rs 25000/- equally between those officers. Section 7(1) Section 20(1)
45	CIC/SM/A/2011/002286 (302.46 KB)	10 Jul, 2012	Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat The Appellant has complained that the desired information has not been provided to him even after the lapse of more than four months – the Respondents submitted that they had been in the process of challenging CIC directions had not been carried out Section 7(1)

31

CIC/VS/A/2013/002030/SH (Show Cause Notice) CIC/SH/A/2014/003034
(226.85 KB) pdf icon

24 May, 2016

Jaiprakesh Upadhaya Vs. Central Bank of India, Saharsa

Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not providing the information within specified period of thirty days

The Commission held even though there was delay on CPIO's part in sending a reply to the Appellant, there is nothing on record to show a deliberate or malafide intent on his part in not sending a reply to the Appellant in time. The Commission further held that in case collection of information is likely to take more time, an interim reply should be sent to all concerned, informing them that the information is being collected.

32

CIC/KY/C/2016/000008 CIC/KY/A/2016/000009
(178.07 KB) pdf icon

22 Apr, 2016

Akshay Kr. Malhotra vs DDA, New Delhi

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty.

The Commission held that the petitioner has filed petitions in composite nature whereby, the petitioner has sought relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act and also the penal action along with disciplinary action against the respondents under sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act. Thus, these petitions may be legally construed as composite petitions. The composite petition of such nature is not legally tenable, simply because, if the relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) is allowed on such composite petition, the incorporation of section 19(3) of the RTI Act would be rendered as redundant and meaningless. The relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/ s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission.

Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub-clause (1) & sub-clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. Composite petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.

33

CIC/RM/A/2014/004572-SA CIC/RM/A/2014/004573-SA
(357.65 KB) pdf icon

21 Apr, 2016

Anil Kumar Gupta vs National Institute of Open Schooling

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty.

The Commission held that the NIOS has breached the law and the settled principles of natural justice by allowing party like Joint Director, to hear appeal of the appellant as FAA resulting in unjustified and biased The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavor should not participate in arising from such a decision. There is a strong prima facie case that the concerned Joint Director might tampered with the documents to wrongfully to show that the appellant was not performing well. The Commission directed the CPIO and the concerned Joint Director to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for misleading the Commission and making allegations that the appellant was misusing the Act. The Commission also directed the concerned Joint Director to show cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for hearing first appeal being an interested party and directed the public authority to explain why compensation of Rs. 50,000/ should not be paid to the appellant.

34

CIC/RM/C/2014/000063/SA
(255.24 KB) pdf icon

04 Apr, 2016

R G. Nangia Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information. Delay explained satisfactorily.

The Commission held that the appellant is misusing RTI to harass the authority because he was removed from the service. He has every right to challenge his termination before appropriate forum. Having heard the submission of appellant and PIO the Commission found the explanation satisfactory and dropped the penalty proceedings.

35

CIC/SA/A/2015/001769
(262.30 KB) pdf icon

11 Mar, 2016

Nand Lal vs Department of Legal Affairs

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty for not providing the information.

The Commission held that the Public authority and the notary are under a legal duty to protect and preserve such records/registers. If records are truly eaten away the termite, they owe an explanation to the people why they failed to prevent it. They also have a duty to give (i) list of records damaged by termite; (ii) list of those survived termite attack; and (iii) partially damaged records. If termite attack is claimed by the notary public, the genuineness of same has to be verified by the regulatory. If it was found to be wrongful claim the public authority should have taken necessary action against persons responsible for same. Section 4(I)(a) and (b) of the RTI Act imposed an obligation on notary and legal affairs department (public authority) to publish three lists.

The Commission considered Smt. Meena Sharma as deemed PIQ and directed her to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against her for not facilitating inspection of records through public authority as ordered by First appellate The Commission also directed Smt. Meena Sharma to furnish the certified copies of extracts from the notary registers as sought under the public authority and to explain why Commission should not direct the Department of Legal Affairs and her to give suitable compensation to the appellant.

36

CIC/SA/A/2015/002048
(365.56 KB) pdf icon

29 Feb, 2016

Jagdish Prasad Vs. Revenue Department

Section 19(8)(b) Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty the Commission held that the public authority has a duty to inform the voter appellant why he could not get the voter card on their own. They did not choose to answer even after he legally sought under RTI Act. They failed to convince the Commission why should they transfer the request instead of answering it. It is clear that their inaction and non-response to RTI application is violation of both of his rights right to information and right to vote. The voter has right to information about action on his application for voter card and also RTI under RTI Act. Article 325 of Indian Constitution categorically mandates that there shall be no discrimination in inclusion into the electoral rolls. By negligence or inaction, the Election Office has not included the applicant's voter card in the electoral list and thus his constitutional right is breached. The Election Office to showcause why suitable compensation should not be ordered to be paid by them to the applicant.

37

CIC/KY/A/2015/000857
(0 bytes) pdf icon

22 Feb, 2016

A. M. Attar Vs. Haj Committee of India, Mumbai

Section 19(3) Second appeal to the Commission Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty Section 20(2) Recommendation of disciplinary action against the CPIO Composite Petition the Commission held that the relief provided under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub clause (1) & sub clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. In the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act to file the Composite Petition, the instant composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

38

CIC/MP/A/2015/901418
(90.67 KB) pdf icon

10 Feb, 2016

Nihar Panda vs National Commission for Women, New Delhi

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty

The Commission held that the copy of the review petition filed by the NCW before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of section 8(1)() of the RTI Act as the appellant was not a party to the petition and the disclosure of which would reveal the particulars of the petitioner's wife, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

The Commission further held that it disagrees with the decision of the respondents and observed that the appellant's RTI application was replied to by the FAA at appellate stage. The CPIO has failed Right to Information Reporter - 2016 May to respond to the RTI application, therefore, issued show cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO to explain the reasons why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for not responding the RTI application.

39

CIC/SH/A/2014/002977 CIC/SH/A/2014/002847
(312.87 KB) pdf icon

28 Jan, 2016

Bablu Chatterjee VS. National Library, Belvedere

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty the Commission held that the appellant returned the replies sent to him, even though in a delayed manner, and insists on imposition of penalty on the CPIO. It would appear that rather than getting the information, he is interested in getting the CPIO penalised. Nothing has been placed before us to establish a malafide intent on the part of the CPIO to delay or deny the information. Not a fit case where penalty can be imposed upon CPIO.

40

CIC/SA/C/2014/000458
(298.23 KB) pdf icon

26 Mar, 2015

R.K. Jain Vs. National Green Tribunal

The appellant sought date-wise details of tickets purchased/produced for the air travel/rail travel by National Green Tribunal for a particular period. The CPIO requested the Complainant to come for inspection with prior notice of 15 days.

The Commission held that the inspection of the record is not the substitute of providing the information. While offering the inspection of records the CPIO has illegally and unauthorisedly put a condition of giving 15 days prior notice by the Complainant. The Commission directed the CPIO to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed against him for the violations of RTI Act invoking section 20 and recommended the disciplinary action against him.

41

CIC/SA/A/2014/000155
(471.72 KB) pdf icon

16 Jan, 2015

Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Deptt for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC, Govt of NCT of Delhi

The appellant sought to know the action taken on the report of Delhi Lokayuktha indicting former Chief Minister and some other Ministers of Government of Delhi for spending public money on advertisements and certified copies of certain other documents.

The CIC directed the Union of India and Government of Delhi to disclose its policy under Section 4 of the Act, on recommendations of Prof. Madhava Menon Committee and Lokayuktha of Delhi regarding usage of photos of political leaders in advertisements issued by the State.

As the disclosure of information involves policy decision to be taken by the Higher authorities in Government, it is not just and proper to penalise the PIO for non-disclosure of policy, who does not have any role in decision making process and in view of the observations of Delhi Lokayuktha not to issue advise/recommendation to the lower level officers, the Commission finds no ground for imposing penalty on the PIO.

42

CIC/DS/A/2011/002565
(207.46 KB) pdf icon

08 Jan, 2013

Sr. Ravindra Nath Khera V.S. United Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigah/Chennai(Sh. Roop Singh Singh Azad, CPIO & Sh. B.L. NArsimha Rao, CPIO/FAA- through videoconferencing)

Issue of Show Cause notice for not suppling the information- the appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, Kurukshetra, seeking status in respect of the second claim in policy – the CPIO had directed appellant to access information directly form the TPA (who by itself is not a public authority) whereas the representative of the TPA had informed the appellant that information can be disclosed only at the behest of the insurer and cannot be parted with to any other person-

The Commission held that the CPIO has denied information to the appellant without any application of mind when he is fully aware of the fact that the TPA is a creature of the Company and created through an agreement/contract between the two parties for rendering service to policy holders on behalf of the Company. Therefore, it is only natural to conclude that all documents held by the TPA pertaining to the medi claim policies can be accessed by the insurer. Show cause notice issued to CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed.

43

CIC/LS/A/2011/002896/BS/0737
(87.16 KB) pdf icon

04 Oct, 2012

Mr. Nirmal Kumar vs CPIO BSNL

The Commission held that the CPIO is unable to explain why even an interim reply covering partial information could not be sent to the appellant within the mandated time of 30 days. No reasonable grounds has been offered by the CPIO for not providing timely information. Penalty imposed. Section 7(1) Section 20 (1)

44

CIC/LS/A/2011/000408/BS/0296
(53.48 KB) pdf icon

12 Jul, 2012

Mr. Desh Raj vs CPIO BSNL

The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO – the CPIO in his reply stated that the information as desired by the applicant was sought from the custodian of the information i.e. Executive Engineer. It has been intimated by Executive Engineer that due to acute shortage of staff and the information being old, the office is unable to supply the desired information. The CPIO added that presently he is in a position to supply only some documents requested in the RTI application as the other documents/information are missing from the records. The Commission held that it is unable to accept the contention of the CPIO/other officers the remaining records containing the information are missing. The Commission concludes that all the concerned officers are jointly responsible for the delay in providing the information. Accordingly the Commission has decided to divide the total penalty amount of Rs 25000/- equally between those officers. Section 7(1) Section 20(1)

45

CIC/SM/A/2011/002286
(302.46 KB) pdf icon

10 Jul, 2012

Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat

The Appellant has complained that the desired information has not been provided to him even after the lapse of more than four months – the Respondents submitted that they had been in the process of challenging CIC directions had not been carried out Section 7(1)