Appellant: documents were deliberately mixed up in different files for inspection - CIC: It is shameful that Appellants are forced to file second appeals for compliance of FAA’s order; it’s a serious violation of RTI Act; penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed
12 Feb, 2015Facts
Heard on 1.12.14. Appellant present. Respondent is represented by Shri Ashok Kumar Verma.
2. The Commission vide decision of even No. dt.9.6.14 directed the PIO to show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on him under section 20 of the RTI Act, for noncompliance of the FAA order and for not furnishing the relevant information to the appellant. His explanation should reach the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order.
3. On not receiving any reply, the Commission vide notice dt.7.7.14 directed the PIO to appear before the Commission on 24.7.14 at 12.00 Noon.
4. The Commission received a letter dt.15.7.14 from Shri A.K.Verma, Assistant Registrar (Section 7) stating that in compliance of the CIC order, information against two points was furnished on 3.6.14.
5. Vide Decision dt.5.8.14, Commission directed Shri A.K.Verma to inform whether the order of the Appellate Authority has been complied with or not and to submit his explanation within three weeks.
6. Meanwhile, Commission received a petition dt.25.7.14 from the Appellant stating that no information was provided by the Respondent as per his RTI dt.3.9.12.
7. The Commission vide notice dt.14.11.14 directed the PIO to appear before the Commission on 1.12.14 at 2.30 PM.
8. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that information was provided after the Appellant inspected the records on 26.11.14. The Appellant denied by stating that in order to deny the information, the Respondent has opened several files and it would be very difficult to search the records and the documents he had obtained after inspection is not what he had sought in his RTI application dt.3.9.12.
9. The Appellant in his RTI application dt.3.9.12 had sought the following information:
‘I would like to seek the notings, memos and orders on the action taken regarding the above letter {on my letter dt.19.5.12 regarding non compliance of award in arbitration case no.137 GH/JR/ARB/201112(Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs Sadhbhawana CGHS893 SW)} with respect to point no.6 and 7 at the earliest.’ The points 6 and 7 of the letter dt.19.5.12 referred in the RTI application dt.3.9.12 are reproduced below:
6. The so called current president and her spouse (joint members) are Property dealers in Dwarka operating under the name of Kalhan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The company was founded and held equally owned by them. Shri Awan Kalhan operated under the name of Bobby Kalhan and his name appears on various websites in connection with property deals. Some information is attached along with. 7) The Society is in violation of orders of the Hon’ble High Court and your office. It may be noted that members were enrolled by the previous Administrator(s) without approval of the RCS, and illegal cessations/expulsions and other transgressions of law. The previous Administrator forwarded only 51 names for draw of lots, many of whose were never approved by RCS, growth of this list too needs to be checked. The list of members has to be revised after restoration of memberships by the special RCS and Learned Arbitrator as above. It is earnestly requested that restoration of the membership of the undersigned to original status, relevant payment and formalities be completed for inclusion of name in draw of lots. The Appellate Authority vide order dt.8.10.12 made the following directions:
‘The AR/SW/APIO is directed to give a proper reply to the appellant within ten days from the issue of this order’
In compliance of this order, Shri A.K.Verma vide letter dt.26.10.12 furnished a copy of the Arbitration Award dt.29.2.12. The Appellant filed an appeal against this order on 20.11.12 stating that document supplied is not relevant to what he had sought. On not receiving any reply, he approached the Commission. 10. In his order dt.8.10.12, the Appellate Authority has stated that Appellant has filed an appeal against the reply of PIO. It is not clear what the PIO has replied and also on what date and also the date of first appeal and the contents of the first appeal.
11. Shri A.K.Verma, in compliance to the CIC order dt.9.5.14 provided the following information on 3.6.14.
a) Regarding point no.6, it is informed that as per records, ITRs from 200607 onwards in r/o Awan Kalhan and Anjali Kalhan and other relevant documents were examined at the time of submission of proposal.
b) Further, as per records, the society was already directed to include the name of the applicant and accordingly, demand letter was also issued to Shri A.K.Sharma, by the society on 28.9.12.
12. If there is any ambiguity or if there is any need for clarification regarding RTI application, the CPIO/APIO should have sought for the same either directly from the Appellant or at the hearing before First Appellate Authority. The FAA in this case is Shri G.L.Meena, Special Registrar for Cooperative Societies, i.e. a senior officer to the PIO/APIO. The PIO/APIO would have got ample time and opportunity to address the issues regarding the information sought and to redress the grievance of the Appellant, if any. All of them could be sorted out at the hearing before FAA. Once the FAA has passed the order, the PIO/APIO present during the hearing and agreed to the same cannot have any excuse against implementing the order of FAA. The FAA has directed the AR/SW/APIO to give a ‘proper’ reply to the Appellant within ten days, on 8.10.12. This order reveals that earlier information was not proper and it also gives not more than ten days to comply. Instead of complying with the same, Appellant was given a copy of award of arbitration dt.29.2.12 given much prior to RTI application (3.9.12) and also prior to FAAO (8.10.12).
13. It is shameful that the Appellants are forced to file second appeals for compliance of FAAO. Not honouring or implementing their own senior’s orders is a serious violation of RTI Act, besides being disloyalty or breach of duty as subordinate at the public office.
14. The delay in giving response to RTI application would be possible for variety of reasons like ambiguity of request, over work, lack of support staff, missing record etc. But having agreed to give information or being bound by FAAO, it is not pardonable for the PIO/APIO to defy, delay, deny or confuse the response after a specific order is given by the FAAO.
15. The Commission takes serious view of response or lack of it, delay in complying with the order of FAA for about two years instead of ten days. In this case, it was not just non compliance of FAAO nor delay, APIO chose to facilitate inspection on 26.11.14 instead of complying with the order within ten days. During inspection, confusion was created and Appellant had to return with dissatisfaction complaining that documents were deliberately mixed up in different files.
16. The Commission on perusal of the documents on record holds that Shri A.K.Verma has not provided any satisfactory explanation for noncompliance of the order of the Appellate Authority and it has been decided to impose a penalty on him. Accordingly, Shri A.K.Verma is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25000/ in equal monthly instalments.
17. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the salary payable to Shri A.K.Verma by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of ‘PAO CAT’ in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 10th February 2015 and the last instalment should reach by 10th June. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri Shanti Priye Beck, Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar Central Information Commission, Bhikaji Cama Place, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi 110 066.
18. The Commission ordered accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Arvind Kumar Sharma v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, GNCTD in case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000990SA