welcome to Penalty | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
46	CIC/SG/A/2012/000330/18739 Penalty (32.45 KB)	01 Jun, 2012	Ranji Anandan v Indian Bank, Chennai Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period of 30 days The Commission held that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing the information within the time specified under section 7 (1) by not replying within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the directions of the Commission and since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
47	CIC/SG/A/2012/000880/18723 Penalty (36.90 KB)	24 May, 2012	Harish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within time as prescribed under section 7(l) of the Act The PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE(B) under section 5(4) of the RTI Act – Mr. Nihhawan forwarded the RTI application to Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE who failed to submit the correct and complete information within the prescribed time limit The Commission held that in such circumstances, notwithstanding the default on the part of Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE and Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE would be the deemed PIO for the purposes of Section 20 of the RTI Act and therefore, would be liable to be penalised. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawa, EE(B) & Deemed PIO for the delay in providing the information and the delay is much in excess of 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on him.
48	CIC/SG/A/2012/0000326/18737 (49.18 KB)	03 May, 2012	Mr. Deepak Kumar vs Public Information Officer Assistant Administrative Officer Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh Supply of information within stipulated period of 30 days - Delay of over 100 days in providing the information –CIC issued Show cause notice to PIO as why penalty should not be imposed on him.
49	CIC/SG/A/2012/000667/18564 (58.51 KB)	24 Apr, 2012	Mr. Harish Kumar vs Mr. Dilip Ramnani PIO & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Mr. V. K. Bhatia PIO & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi Information to be supplied free of cost if not provided within stipulated period. Imposed penalty.
50	CIC/DS/A/2011/000501 (206.55 KB)	02 Apr, 2012	Rajpal Vs. LIC of India, Bareilly Section 20(1) – Levy of Penalty The PIO submitted that he joined as CPIO in August 2010 and hence, was not having the knowledge of the RTI Act at the time of the receipt of the RTI application – Whether sufficient cause for not imposing the penalty – the Commission held that the CPIO has furnished reply to the Appellant stating that the information cannot be provided u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act clearly shows the basic understanding of RTI Act prevailing with the CPIO. Thus, the submissions made by the CPIO are not credible in nature and attracts penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Penalty of Rs 25000/- imposed.
51	CIC/SG/A/2011/003705/17381 (62.65 KB)	28 Mar, 2012	Pappu Gautam Vs. PIO & AGM, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office Lakhimpur – Kheri Radhey Complex, Lakhimpur – Kheri, UP Section 20(1) – Levy of Penalty for not providing the information within specified period of thirty days The Commission held that the PIO had raised an extortionist demand of Rs. 15000/- without giving any calculations as per the requirement of the RTI Act. The FAA had also not passed any order within the time frame provided in the Act. The PIO stated that that he through he could charge the fees of the cost of salary of officers who would be involved in getting the information. The Commission further held that fee has to be calculated as per the central rules and the PIO cannot arbitrarily demand any fee to discourage the applicants from getting the information. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon to the CPIO.
52	CIC/SG/A/2011/003750/17452 (53.71 KB)	26 Mar, 2012	Syed Waqar Ali Vs. Deemed PIO & AZI Municipal Corporation of India, Delhi Section 20(1) – Levy of Penalty – The Commission held that the PIO has provided false information to the Appellant. The appellant has received the information only on 06/01/2012 after a delay of 50 days. In view of this the commission imposed a penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the Deemed PIO at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day of delay for 50 days i.e. Rs. 250 X 50 days = 12500/-.
53	CIC/DS/A/2011/001580 (209.89 KB)	21 Mar, 2012	Santosh Kumar Kaushal Vs. SBI, Shimla/Chandigarh section 20(1) – Levy of Penalty – Show cause notice issued The Commission held that the appellant is an employee of the bank and was available to provide clarification to the CPIO / First Appellant Authority did not understand the nature of information sought by the appellant. The Commission is not at all satisfied with the explanation provided by the former CPIO for having denied information to the appellant in response to the RTI application. Accordingly as per the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the former CPIO is imposed.
54	CIC/SG/A/2011/003558/17224 (36.02 KB)	09 Mar, 2012	Khageswar Pardhan Vs. Mr. Ram Dev, Accounts Officer & the then PIO, National Institute of Malaria and Research, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi Section 20(1) – Levy of penalty for not providing the information within specified period of thirty days – Delay of period over 100 days – The Commission held that it is very clear that Mr. Ram Dev was responsible as the then PIO. The commission held that it is fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ram Dev, the then PIO of Rs. 25,000/- which is maximum penalty under the RTI Act.
55	CIC/SM/C/2011/000818 & 1565 (300.60 KB)	29 Feb, 2012	Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period of 30 days — The Commission held that the order of the CIC in second appeal is final and must be carried out unless specifically stayed by the High Court or the Supreme Court of India. Even after four months of the decision, the government has not gone before the Supreme Court of India or the High Court and obtained any stay. They cannot defy the directions merely because they are contemplating challenging our order before the High Court. Show cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act issued to the respondent for levy of penalty.
56	CIC/DS/A/2010/001853 (90.14 KB)	16 Sep, 2011	Mukesh Kumar Goel vs NICL New Delhi The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO – information delayed – the Respondent submitted that there was no malafide on the part of the CPIOs in denying/delaying information and that in fact, the CPIO, had provided inspection of 53 files within one month of receipt of the RTI application and subsequently eight other files were also shown to the appellant. The Commission accepted as credible, the averments of the Respondent that there was no malafide on the part of the CPIOs in withholding/denying information to the appellant. Section 7 (1)
57	CIC/SG/A/2011/000267/11756 (53.42 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Mr. Satish Chauhan, Delhi Vs. Mr. Ajay Arora Public Information Officer &Asst;. Commissioner (N/W), Food & Supplies Department. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO 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). Show cause notice issued to him to give reasons why penalty should not be levied on him under Section 20(1).
58	CIC/SG/A/2011/000179/11746 (53.07 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Mr. Mahir Raza Delhi Vs. Mr. Bhagwan Singh Public Information Officer & Dy. Municipal Secretary Municipal Corporation of Delhi The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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. It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission why penalty should not be levied on him.
59	CIC/SG/C/2010/001562/11772 (48.45 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Mr. Chirag Saini, Delhi Vs. Public Information Officer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Complainant filed an RTI application asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. The issue before the Commission is of not providing the requisite information by the PIO within 30 days, as required by law. From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the PIO has not provided the correct and complete information within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the PIO’s part in providing the information, amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission’s direction and also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide. The PIO is directed to send his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the PIO may serve this notice to any other official (s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and may direct them to submit their written submissions along with him.
60	CIC/SG/C/2010/001462/11737 (50.69 KB)	30 Mar, 2011	Mr. Aman Kumar, New Delhi Vs. PIO & Deputy Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The Complainant filed an RTI application with Respondent No. 1 on 20/10/2010 asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by law. The PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The PIO appears to be guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under subsection (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the actions of the PIO attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.

46

CIC/SG/A/2012/000330/18739 Penalty
(32.45 KB) pdf icon

01 Jun, 2012

Ranji Anandan v Indian Bank, Chennai

Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period of 30 days
The Commission held that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing the information within the time specified under section 7 (1) by not replying within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the directions of the Commission and since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

47

CIC/SG/A/2012/000880/18723 Penalty
(36.90 KB) pdf icon

24 May, 2012

Harish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within time as prescribed under section 7(l) of the Act
The PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE(B) under section 5(4) of the RTI Act – Mr. Nihhawan forwarded the RTI application to Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE who failed to submit the correct and complete information within the prescribed time limit
The Commission held that in such circumstances, notwithstanding the default on the part of Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE and Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE would be the deemed PIO for the purposes of Section 20 of the RTI Act and therefore, would be liable to be penalised. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawa, EE(B) & Deemed PIO for the delay in providing the information and the delay is much in excess of 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on him.

48

CIC/SG/A/2012/0000326/18737
(49.18 KB) pdf icon

03 May, 2012

Mr. Deepak Kumar vs Public Information Officer Assistant Administrative Officer Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh

Supply of information within stipulated period of 30 days - Delay of over 100 days in providing the information –CIC issued Show cause notice to PIO as why penalty should not be imposed on him.

49

CIC/SG/A/2012/000667/18564
(58.51 KB) pdf icon

24 Apr, 2012

Mr. Harish Kumar vs Mr. Dilip Ramnani PIO & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Mr. V. K. Bhatia PIO & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Information to be supplied free of cost if not provided within stipulated period. Imposed penalty.

50

CIC/DS/A/2011/000501
(206.55 KB) pdf icon

02 Apr, 2012

Rajpal Vs. LIC of India, Bareilly

Section 20(1) – Levy of Penalty
The PIO submitted that he joined as CPIO in August 2010 and hence, was not having the knowledge of the RTI Act at the time of the receipt of the RTI application – Whether sufficient cause for not imposing the penalty – the Commission held that the CPIO has furnished reply to the Appellant stating that the information cannot be provided u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act clearly shows the basic understanding of RTI Act prevailing with the CPIO. Thus, the submissions made by the CPIO are not credible in nature and attracts penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Penalty of Rs 25000/- imposed.

51

CIC/SG/A/2011/003705/17381
(62.65 KB) pdf icon

28 Mar, 2012

Pappu Gautam Vs. PIO & AGM, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office Lakhimpur – Kheri Radhey Complex, Lakhimpur – Kheri, UP

Section 20(1) – Levy of Penalty for not providing the information within specified period of thirty days
The Commission held that the PIO had raised an extortionist demand of Rs. 15000/- without giving any calculations as per the requirement of the RTI Act. The FAA had also not passed any order within the time frame provided in the Act. The PIO stated that that he through he could charge the fees of the cost of salary of officers who would be involved in getting the information. The Commission further held that fee has to be calculated as per the central rules and the PIO cannot arbitrarily demand any fee to discourage the applicants from getting the information. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon to the CPIO.

52

CIC/SG/A/2011/003750/17452
(53.71 KB) pdf icon

26 Mar, 2012

Syed Waqar Ali Vs. Deemed PIO & AZI Municipal Corporation of India, Delhi

Section 20(1) – Levy of Penalty –
The Commission held that the PIO has provided false information to the Appellant. The appellant has received the information only on 06/01/2012 after a delay of 50 days. In view of this the commission imposed a penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the Deemed PIO at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day of delay for 50 days i.e. Rs. 250 X 50 days = 12500/-.

53

CIC/DS/A/2011/001580
(209.89 KB) pdf icon

21 Mar, 2012

Santosh Kumar Kaushal Vs. SBI, Shimla/Chandigarh

section 20(1) – Levy of Penalty – Show cause notice issued

The Commission held that the appellant is an employee of the bank and was available to provide clarification to the CPIO / First Appellant Authority did not understand the nature of information sought by the appellant. The Commission is not at all satisfied with the explanation provided by the former CPIO for having denied information to the appellant in response to the RTI application. Accordingly as per the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the former CPIO is imposed.

54

CIC/SG/A/2011/003558/17224
(36.02 KB) pdf icon

09 Mar, 2012

Khageswar Pardhan Vs. Mr. Ram Dev, Accounts Officer & the then PIO, National Institute of Malaria and Research, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi

Section 20(1) – Levy of penalty for not providing the information within specified period of thirty days – Delay of period over 100 days –

The Commission held that it is very clear that Mr. Ram Dev was responsible as the then PIO. The commission held that it is fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ram Dev, the then PIO of Rs. 25,000/- which is maximum penalty under the RTI Act.

55

CIC/SM/C/2011/000818 & 1565
(300.60 KB) pdf icon

29 Feb, 2012

Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan

Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period of 30 days —
The Commission held that the order of the CIC in second appeal is final and must be carried out unless specifically stayed by the High Court or the Supreme Court of India. Even after four months of the decision, the government has not gone before the Supreme Court of India or the High Court and obtained any stay. They cannot defy the directions merely because they are contemplating challenging our order before the High Court. Show cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act issued to the respondent for levy of penalty.

56

CIC/DS/A/2010/001853
(90.14 KB) pdf icon

16 Sep, 2011

Mukesh Kumar Goel vs NICL New Delhi

The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO – information delayed – the Respondent submitted that there was no malafide on the part of the CPIOs in denying/delaying information and that in fact, the CPIO, had provided inspection of 53 files within one month of receipt of the RTI application and subsequently eight other files were also shown to the appellant. The Commission accepted as credible, the averments of the Respondent that there was no malafide on the part of the CPIOs in withholding/denying information to the appellant. Section 7 (1)

57

CIC/SG/A/2011/000267/11756
(53.42 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Mr. Satish Chauhan, Delhi Vs. Mr. Ajay Arora Public Information Officer &Asst;. Commissioner (N/W), Food & Supplies Department.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO 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). Show cause notice issued to him to give reasons why penalty should not be levied on him under Section 20(1).

58

CIC/SG/A/2011/000179/11746
(53.07 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Mr. Mahir Raza Delhi Vs. Mr. Bhagwan Singh Public Information Officer & Dy. Municipal Secretary Municipal Corporation of Delhi

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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. It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission why penalty should not be levied on him.

59

CIC/SG/C/2010/001562/11772
(48.45 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Mr. Chirag Saini, Delhi Vs. Public Information Officer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

The Complainant filed an RTI application asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.
The issue before the Commission is of not providing the requisite information by the PIO within 30 days, as required by law. From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the PIO has not provided the correct and complete information within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the PIO’s part in providing the information, amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission’s direction and also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide. The PIO is directed to send his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the PIO may serve this notice to any other official (s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and may direct them to submit their written submissions along with him.

60

CIC/SG/C/2010/001462/11737
(50.69 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2011

Mr. Aman Kumar, New Delhi Vs. PIO & Deputy Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

The Complainant filed an RTI application with Respondent No. 1 on 20/10/2010 asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by law. The PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The PIO appears to be guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under subsection (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the actions of the PIO attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.