PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

ADJUNCT DECISION

1. The instant matter is being pursued in furtherance of the following CIC decision issued on 20.03.2024.

1. “The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.09.2022 seeking information through 9 points in the following manner:

Loosely translated from Hindi

“Sir, all the information sought is only related to the Distance Mode of Private Universities. (i) Please inform whether any private university can take admission of students pursuing B.A. course through Distance Mode by opening an Exam Centre somewhere outside the university.

(ii) Private Universities are permitted to establish Exam Centres, Information Centres and D Centres for Dist Mode education.

(iii) I have completed B.A. I took admission in the BA course through Distance mode in a private university on 28th July 2017 and from July 2017 to January 2018 that private university was approved by UGC to conduct BA course for Distance learning but from July 2018 to January 2021 it did not get UGC approval for Distance learning and I obtained my BA degree from the university in December 2020, then that degree will be valid for appointment in any government service.

(iv) I have completed B.A. course through Distance mode from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, Katni (Madhya Pradesh private university). I have obtained degree in A course in 2020 and my admission in it was in 2017 but this University had taken my A/C in Du Kheda Tehsil Pincode 487337, Gram Centre Code MDE 139, then please tell me whether my degree is valid for appointment in government service or not.

(v) Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, Katni (Madhya Pradesh Private University) has been allotted B.Ed. in Discipline Education. For conducting access courses, it is permitted to establish AM Centre, D Centre and Information Centre. If permitted, then please inform the university about the maximum number of centres that can be established..." etc.

Ø “महोदय, चाही गई िन सभी जानकारी िसफ ाइवेट यूनीविसटी के िड­ स मोड के संबंध म चािहए है। (i) यह जानकारी दे िक *ा कोई ाइवेट यूिनविसटी िड­ स मोड से बी. ए कोस कर रहे छा-ों के ए.ा/ यूिनविसटी से बाहर कही ए.ाम स टर बनाकर ले सकती है।

(ii) *ा ाइवेट यूिनविसटी को िड­ स एजुके शन के िलए ए.ाम स टर और इनफॉम6शन स टर और ­डी स टर 7ािपत करने की अनुमित है।

(iii) म:ने बी. ए. कोस म िड­ स मोड से ऐडिमशन िकसी ाइवेट यूिनविसटी म 28 जुलाई 2017 म िलया और जुलाई 2017 से जनवरी 2018 तक उस ाइवेट यूिनविसटी को यूजीसी का िड­ स लिनBग के िलए बी. ए. कोस कराने के िलए अूवल था परंतु जुलाई 2018 से जनवरी 2021 के िलए उसे यूजीसी का िड­ स लिनBग के िलए अूवल नही िमला और मैने बी. ए. की िडDी यूिनविसटी से िदसंबर 2020 म ाE की तब *ा मेरी वह िडDी िकसी सरकारी सेवा म िनयुFG के िलए माH होगी।

(iv) म:ने महिष महेश योगी वैिदक िवKिवLालय, कटनी (मM देश िनजी िवKिवLालय) से िड­ स मोड से बी. ए कोस की िडDी 2020 म ाE की है और मेरा एडिमशन इसम 2017 म Nआ था परPु इस यूिनविसटी ने मेरे ए.ा/ त दू खेड़ा तहसील िपनकोड 487337, ए.ाम स टर कोड एम.डी.ई 139 म िलए थे तो *ा मेरी िडDी सरकारी सेवा म िनयुFG के िलए माH है या नहीं कृ पया WX कर ।

(v) महिष महेश योगी वैिदक िवKिवLालय, कटनी (मM देश िनजी िवKिवLालय) को *ा िड­ स एजुके शन से बी. ए कोस कराने के िलए ए.ाम स टर और ­डी स टर और इनफॉम6शन स टर 7ािपत करने की अनुमित है अगर अनुमित है तो अिधकतम िकतने स टर 7ािपत कर सकती है ये यूिनविसटी कृ पया जानकारी दे।..” etc.

2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 03.10.2022. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any response, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

4. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Dr. N P Meena, EO & CPIO attended the hearing in person.

5. The Appellant submitted that although at this stage the information has been received but the same is incorrect particularly on point no.6, as he has sought to know if the averred University’s Distance Education programme was recognized for the period from July 2020 to January, 2021, but the reply of the CPIO mentions about no recognition being granted to the University after 2019-2020, yet the website of UGC states that the University is recognized for the session of 2020-2021.

6. The Respondent upon a query from the Commission for not having provided any reply to the Appellant at the relevant time, submitted that the then CPIO replied to the RTI Application on 02.01.2023 and the FAA had also issued an order on the First Appeal vide letter dated 02.02.2023. However, prior to the hearing, he has also provided a revised reply to the Appellant in the matter vide a letter dated 08.03.2024, further, since the revised reply was prepared based on the inputs of the concerned Section Officer, he may be allowed to recheck the said point and revert to the Appellant.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, takes grave exception to the inaction of the then CPIO in having caused deemed refusal to provide the information to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. Moreover, even as the belated reply was provided on 02.01.2023 by the then CPIO, it is apparent that the CPIO did not even bother to peruse the RTI queries carefully, as their reply stating-

“kindly visit FAQS & notices at our UGC/DEB website https:// deb.ugc.ac.in/ and approach to the concerned Higher Educational lnstitution (HEI)” had no square applicability to the information sought for in the RTI Application, rather, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the CPIO had provided a template/cyclostyled response. It was incumbent upon the then CPIO to have provided a specific point-wise reply as has been provided by the present CPIO at this stage. It is further unnerving to note that even the FAA did not bother to peruse the RTI Application and the CPIO’s reply of 02.01.2023 before passing the cursory and inordinately delayed order of 02.02.2023. A copy of this order is marked to Vinod Singh Yadav, FAA, through the present FAA to take note of the severe admonition of the Commission for dereliction of the statutory duty cast upon him under the RTI Act.

8. The conduct of the then CPIO suggests a gross disregard for the provisions of the RTI Act as well as an unabashed approach despite the glaring violations of the statutory duty cast upon them by virtue of the RTI Act. Now, therefore, the Commission directs the then CPIO, through the present CPIO, to be present before the bench to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him and disciplinary action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. & (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the then CPIO is directed to send a proper written submission at least 48 hours prior to the date of the hearing explaining his omission in the matter as observed in the preceding paragraph along with supporting documents, if any. Any failure to present themselves before the bench in personal capacity will attract stricter action. The registry attached to this bench shall issue the notice of hearing intimating the date, time, and venue for video conference for the show cause hearing to the then CPIO (through the present CPIO).

9. Dr. N P Meena, EO & CPIO is directed to ensure the service of this order to the then CPIO under due intimation to the Commission immediately upon the receipt of this order.

10. As regards the information provided by the present CPIO, in pursuance of the hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to revisit point no.6 of the RTI Application and provide a fresh response to the Appellant under due intimation to the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of this order.

11. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.”

ADJUNCT DECISION PROCEEDINGS

1. Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, EO & Then CPIO along with Dr. N P Meena, EO & present CPIO attended the hearing in person.

2. Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, EO & then CPIO was heard at length, whereby, he merely harped on arguments like receiving 700-800 RTI Applications; being affected by all three waves of COVID on the personal front as well as having placed in public domain the FAQs in compliance with earlier orders of the Commission etc. It was also persistently urged that the Commission should direct his competent authority to institute a system where RTI Applications are not left pending in the event of his unavailability or any incumbent’s unavailability. Throughout the course of the hearing, the tone and tenor of the CPIO was exhibiting no regret and rather seeking to find flaws in the system even when his failure to peruse the RTI Application carefully or in having provided a cyclostyled response was pointed out with reference to similar cases decided vide Second Appeal Nos. CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/658968 + CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/664808, or when the bench sought to draw a comparison between the approach adopted by the present CPIO in having provided a proper reply as opposed to what was provided by Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, EO & then CPIO, there was no reasoning tendered by the erring CPIO, rather, the CPIO’s inclination was to beat around the bush. Moreover, upon being asked to explain how the FAQs relied upon in his reply were relevant to the RTI queries, the CPIO mechanically kept reiterating that the FAQs were published in compliance with earlier orders of the Commission. Nonetheless, in keeping with the principles of natural justice, the Commission is reproducing the written submissions sent by the CPIO shortly prior to the hearing, which was also in violation of the time stipulation prescribed in the decision dated 20.03.2024, and when reasons were sought to be known from the CPIO for the failure to file a proper advance submission, the CPIO relied on antics and feeble excuses. At this point, the CPIO was reminded that his conduct in the instant matter is not an isolated instance but bafflingly so, the same conduct has been noted in other appeal(s) relating to the same time period as evinced in CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/658968 and CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/664808.

The written submissions are reiterated as under:

“With reference to the subject cited above, it is kindly submitted that due to the mounting pressure of CBI & legal matters, official meetings and some severe health issues after post-COVID-19 pandemic caused the delay in responding the RTI application. Further, it is also submitted that FAQs were posted on the website of DEB/UGC after approval and directions by the Competent Authorities for addressing all such queries received to the UGC through different platforms by the stakeholders. It(FAQs) was 7pages(16 points) detailed document pertaining to DEB(copy attached). Additionally, the revised reply/ documents/ information to the applicant had also been sent to the applicant by the UGC.

Respected Madam, the reason behind the day was never intentional and it is also assured that, in future; I’ll take more precautionary measures while dealing with the RTI/Appeal matters.

Keeping in view of the above, I humbly request to the Competent Authority to condone the lapse on the part of then CPIO, UGC in the matter.”

3. A conjoint reading of the above observations of the Commission against the conduct of Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, EO & then CPIO indicates a sheer disregard on his part for the mandate of the RTI Act as well as that of the proceedings of the Commission. Further, the apparent failure to justify the composite acts of omission and commission on his part as noted above, i.e. in having caused deemed refusal to provide the information without any reasonable cause; having provided an irrelevant reply despite the belated stage at which the RTI Application was being responded to; amounts to causing an obstruction to the Appellant’s right to information without any reasonable cause. The said observations extrapolated by the callous and seemingly adamant conduct of Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, EO & then CPIO during the hearing despite the failure to plead his stand or justify the misconduct calls for an imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act.

4. Having observed as above, the Commission hereby imposes a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act on Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, EO & then CPIO, DEB, UGC for the gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This amount will be deducted from his salary, which will be remitted by December, 2024. The FAA is directed to recover the total amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) from the salary of Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, EO & then CPIO, DEB, UGC and remit the same through a Demand Draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT payable at New Delhi and send the same to Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No. 506, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – 110067.

5. The show-cause proceedings are hereby concluded.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mahendra Sahu v. University Grants Commission, CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/660420; Date of Adjunct Decision: 02.09.2024