CIC: The timeframe stipulated in the RTI Act for disposal of RTI applications would cease to have any sanctity if PIOs were to disown their responsibility merely by stating that an RTI application was misplaced; penalty of Rs. 25,000/ imposed
6 Nov, 2014PIO: RTI application was received but he had to go for a training for 15 days during which it was misplaced & could not be responded to - CIC: The timeframe stipulated in the RTI Act for disposal of RTI applications would cease to have any sanctity if PIOs were to disown their responsibility merely by stating that an RTI application was misplaced; penalty of Rs. 25,000/ imposed
Though registered as a complaint, we are treating this matter as an appeal because in his communication dated 5.1.2013 to the Commission, the Appellant has clearly described it as an appeal under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act.
Hearing on 19.6.2014
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 6.8.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on five points regarding waiver of loans to farmers. Not having received a reply from the CPIO, he filed an appeal to the First appellate Authority on 17.9.2012. Not having heard from the FAA, the Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 5.1.2013.
3. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant stated that he had still not received the information sought by him. Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, Branch Manager, who represented the Respondents, stated that the RTI application had been received by him in his capacity as the CPIO. However, he had to go for a training for about fifteen days. The RTI application was misplaced during this period and could not be responded to. He further submitted that he would be sending a reply to the Appellant at an early date. He is directed to provide information in response to the RTI application dated 6.8.2012 to the Appellant, within seven days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
4. We also note that the Respondents handled the RTI communications received from the Appellant in a casual manner. Neither the RTI application, nor the appeal to the First Appellate Authority was responded to. We are not inclined to accept the explanation of the CPIO for no reply having been sent to the RTI application till today. In view of the foregoing, we direct Shri Shailesh Korgoankar, CPIO to show cause why he should not be penalised in terms of the provisions of sub section 1 of Section 20 of the RTI Act for his failure to respond to the RTI application in this case. He is further directed to appear before us on 17 th July, 2014 at 12.15 p.m. and give his explanation. His written submissions, if any, should reach the Commission’s office by 10 th July, 2014. The venue for appearance of the CPIO for the hearing on 17 th July, 2014 will be as follows:NIC District Centre, R. No. 219, First Floor, BBlock, Collectorate Building, Sindhudrug Nagari – 416812, Sindhudrug District, The Contact Officer is Mr. B. B. Hedge, Technical Director & DIO & Contact No. 02362228822
Hearing on 17.7.2014
5. In paragraph 4 above, we had directed Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, CPIO to show cause why he should not be penalised in terms of the provisions of sub Section (1) of Section 20 of the RTI Act for his failure to respond to the RTI application. He was directed to appear before us today. Instead Shri Padmakar Hanchate, Chief Manager appeared on his behalf. He stated that Shri Korgaonkar was unable to appear before us today because he had to attend a promotion interview. Shri Padmakar Hanchate, Chief Manager was informed that Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, CPIO needs to appear before us personally to show cause as per our earlier order dated 19.6.2014.
6. In view of the foregoing, we direct Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, CPIO to appear before us on 25 th August, 2014 at 10.15 a.m. through videoconferencing. The venue for his appearance for the hearing on 25.8.2014 will be as follows:NIC District Centre, R. No. 219, First Floor, B Block, Collectorate Building, Sindhudrug Nagari – 416812, Sindhudrug District The Contact Officer is Mr. B. B. Hedge, Technical Director & DIO & Contact No. 02362228822
Hearing on 25.8.2014
7. Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, Branch Manager and CPIO appeared before us today. He had sent us his written submissions vide his letter dated 3.7.2014, in which he stated that the information sought by the Appellant vide his RTI application was dispatched to him on 28.6.2014 by registered A.D. post. He further submitted that he had committed a mistake in misplacing the RTI application dated 6.8.2012. He also stated that the Appellant has been seeking information on various issues from the bank, including its Zonal Office in Panaji, Goa and that the necessary information has been provided to him. However, the information sought in his RTI application dated 6.8.2012 could not be provided in time. In this context, during today’s hearing, Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, Branch Manager and CPIO repeated what he had stated during the hearing on 19.6.2014, that the above mentioned RTI application was misplaced and could not be responded to. He gave us no other reason for the long delay in responding to the said application. We note that the timeframe stipulated in the RTI Act for disposal of RTI applications would cease to have any sanctity if CPIOs were to disown their responsibility merely by stating that an RTI application was misplaced. We further note that the RTI application dated 6.8.2012 was responded to by the CPIO on 28.6.2014. Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, Branch Manager and CPIO has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding this delay. Accordingly, by virtue of the powers vested in us under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, we impose the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/ on Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, Branch Manager and CPIO. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order by name to the head of the concerned Zonal Office of the bank. The head of the Zonal Office is directed to deduct the above amount of penalty from the monthly salary of Shri Shailesh Korgaonkar, Branch Manager and CPIO, in five equal instalments w.e.f. 1.10.2014. The amounts so deducted be remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
8. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Shriram Vitthal Thakurdesai v. Bank of Maharashtra in File No. CIC/VS/C/2013/000681/SH