CIC: More than 70 cases of the Appellant against same/related Public Authority have already been disposed of; Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional; Appellant cautioned
2 Aug, 2024
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05-11-2022 seeking the following information:
“1. Since sub Rule (7) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 provides that the charged official shall submit his written statement of defence within 10 days of receipt of the copy of the article of changes, the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour and list of documents and witness by which charge is proposed to be sustained.
Having regard to the above, can a Disciplinary Authority direct the charged official to submit a written statement of defence in a case of unauthorized absence from duties if there is no statement of misconduct or misbehavior under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 vide Standard Form no. 5. If so, please supply me the relevant documents/any guidelines.
2. Please supply me a chart, disclosing clearly, if any, what kind of acts and activities of the Railway servant said to have been mentioned in Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal.) Rules, 1968, to which the Railway Authority concerned may remove from his/her service of a particular permanent employee.
3. Please inform me as to the nature of action taken by Hon'ble Chairman & CEO, Railway Board, New Delhi with regard to the representation dated 19/10/2020 addressing Hon'ble Chairman CEO, Railway Board, New Delhi-110001 (copy enclosed).
4. Please inform me as to the nature of action taken by the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi with regard to the representation dated 22/06/2020 which had been forwarded by the Section Officer (Jus-I), M/o Law and Justice, Department of Justice, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi vide letter dated 06/11/2020 being No. L-15012/28/2020-Jus-1 (copy enclosed).”
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 29-11-2022 stating as under:
“Point No. 1:
It appears that the applicant is seeking answer to his query which can only be drawn by the competent authority after due analysis of the case vis-a-vis the rules and instructions. In this regard it is informed that as per the guidelines circulated by the Department of Personnel and Training vide O.М. No.1/32/2013-R dated 28.11.2013 in respect of RTI Act, under the RTI Act, only such information is required to be furnished as already exists and is held by the public authority or held under his control. The public information office is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
Point No. 2:
No such chart has been provided in RS(D&A) Rules, 1968. However, as per Rule 6 of the said Rules, the penalties mentioned thereunder may be imposed on a Railway Servant for good and sufficient reasons.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 24-01-2023, held as under:
“The above appeal has been given due consideration. Firstly the appellant is informed that only item no. 1 & 2 of the application pertain to CPIO-47 which comes under jurisdiction of the undersigned. On perusal of the information supplied by the CPIO-47 it is noted that the CPIO-47 has duly supplied the available information w.r.t. respect to item no. 1 & 2. Reply of CPIO-47 has also been uploaded on RTI portal and a copy of the same is also enclosed herewith. RTI Cell, Railway Board has been advised to transfer the appeal against rest of the items of the application to the concerned Appellate Authority. Appeal against reply w.r.t. item no. 1 & 2 is thus bereft of merit and the CPIO's action does not call for any interference.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri Harish Chander, Director Estt. present in person. Shri Joydeep Sen Gupta, CPIO, Medinipur present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent. He submitted that the reply furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. The Appellant further alleged that the Respondent willfully and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to furnish satisfactory and complete information.
During the hearing, the Appellant raised his grievance that charge-sheet was wrongly issued to him.
The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the PIO and submitted that vide their letter dated 29.11.2022, they have provided information on point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application.
The Respondent further submitted that information sought on point No. 3 of the RTI application was forwarded to the PIO, South Eastern Railway for appropriate action in the matter.
Shri Joydeep Sen Gupta, PIO submitted that reply on point No. 4 of the RTI application was earlier provided to the Appellant related to his representation vide letter dated 12.11.2020. During the hearing, Shri Joydeep Sen Gupta, PIO handed over a copy of letter dated 12.11.2020 to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal is non-furnishing of complete information by the PIO. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that point-wise reply/information in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant against his above-mentioned RTI application.
The Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant on point No. 3 of the RTI application is transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the PIO, South Eastern Railway but as per record of the case no reply was given to the Appellant till date.
Since, much time has now elapsed, therefore, the Respondent is directed to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned PIO to whom the RTI application on point No. 3 was transferred and collect information as sought in the RTI application and provide reply/ information to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
It further appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ….proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
“6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.”
While the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
“20. …While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority….”
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply per se given at the relevant time and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 70 cases of the same Appellant against same/related Public Authority under Ministry of Railways have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that today also 11 (eleven) second appeals of the Appellant are listed for hearing and the Appellant apparently wants to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
“………It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case… … … etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system………..”
It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
“...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest.....”
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
“……. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this “sunshine Act”. A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ………………..”
In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
“...37. ............................ Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties...”
Further, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of “misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant” has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur – 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
“The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated. Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter.”
It is relevant to quote another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
“ 61. 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 show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of mala fides 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....”
The Appellant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Appellant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shankar Poddar v. M/o Railways, Railway Board, CIC/MORLY/A/2023/106645; Date of Decision: 28-03-2024