हाल ही में CIC द्वारा संबंधित CPIO को RTI आवेदनों को संभालने के दौरान सावधानी बरतने और यह सुनिश्चित करने के लिए सख्त चेतावनी जारी की गई है साथ ही यदि उनके द्वारा छूट का दावा किया जाता है, तो उसे भविष्य में उचित रूप से संभालना चाहिए। साथ ही आयोग द्वारा यह भी कहा गया है की भविष्य में ऐसी चूक दोहराई जाती है तो आयोग को उसके खिलाफ दंडात्मक कार्यवाही शुरू कर सकता है। आयोग द्वारा यह भी सलाह दी है कि RTI अधिनियम के तहत कोई भी जवाब देते समय उसके शब्दों को ध्यान से चुनें और किसी भी आवेदक की भावनाओं को आहत न करें जैसा कि वर्तमान मामले में हुआ है।
आयोग उत्तरदाताओं को अपने कर्तव्यों और जिम्मेदारियों के प्रभावी निर्वहन के लिए RTI अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रासंगिक प्रावधानों के बारे में CPIO और FAS सहित संबंधित अधिकारियों को शिक्षित करने के लिए आवधिक सम्मेलनों/संगोष्ठियों को का भी आयोजन करने का कहा गया है, ताकि इस तरह के परिहार्य अंतराल भविष्य में फिर से उत्पन्न न हों।
तो चलिए अभी केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग द्वारा यो जो आदेश दियागया है तो उसे अभी हम जान लेते है।
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gangnath Marg
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/C/2019/661115
In the matter of: Complainant Parveen Kohli
VS
Respondent:
CPIO/RPFC-I,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Zonal Office, Dr. SPM Institute of Social Security Admin. Building, Sector – 16A, Old Faridabad – 121 002, Haryana
RTI application filed on : 18/10/2019
CPIO replied on : 18/10/2019
First appeal filed on : 18/10/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 14/11/2019
Complaint filed on : 28/12/2019
Date of Hearing : 17/08/2020
Date of Decision : 17/08/2020
The following were present:
Complainant: Heard over phone
Respondent: Ms Rina Mandal, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & CPIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information/documents in r/o Zonal Office Haryana, Faridabad as well as all Regional Offices under the jurisdiction of Zonal Office Haryana:
- Soft copy of the email as received in the office on 17/10/19 from Mr. Jag Mohan, ACC (Legal), EPFO HQ forwarding the text of an email from Panel Advocate of EPFO in the Supreme Court regarding challenging the orders of Division Benches of concerned High Courts in r/o pension revision on the basis of higher wages as per EPFO HQ directives issued from time to time e.g. on 23/03/17, 08/06/18, 04/06/19 etc. and the order dt. 04/10/16 of Supreme Court in RC Gupta case (SLP 33032-33033 of 2015)
- Hard copy of the email dt. 17/10/19 as stated above.
- Copy of the recently concluded audit reports as submitted by the specially deputed teams regarding pension revision cases keeping in view compliance of EPFO HQ directives issued from time to time e.g. 23/03/17, 08/06/18, 04/06/19 etc. and the order dt. 04/10/16 of Supreme Court in RC Gupta case (SLP 33032-33033 of 2015) reg. pension revision on higher wages.
- Copies of all letters, circulars etc received from EPFO Hq. & sent to HQ in r/o conducting of special audit as at S. No. 3 above, duly attested.
- And various other information.
Grounds for filing Complaint
The CPIO has provided unsatisfactory information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant submitted that even after clear directions from the FAA to the CPIO to pass a speaking order while reconsidering the ROTI application, the CPIO on points no. 1 & 2 claimed exemption u/s 8(1(e) of the RTI Act without giving any justification for the same. For the other points, the CPIO duly transferred the RTI application to all Regional offices of Haryana to provide the desired information to the appellant but the same was not done through the online RTI portal despite the fact that the complainant had requested the CPIO to make any transfers through the online mode so that he can monitor the status of his application. He also stated that the manner adopted by the CPIO for giving the reply was incorrect as the reply was undated, without any signature and did not contain the name of the CPIO, dispatch details or name of the office. He also stated that the CPIO through an email snubbed him without any basis & powers under the RTI Act. Such uncalled for & baseless charges levelled by the CPIO against him have deeply hurt him. Hence appropriate action u/s 20 of the RTI Act may be initiated against the concerned CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that in compliance with the FAA order, an appropriate reply was given to the complainant on 15.11.2019. Further, she stated that
online mode of transfer could not be done at that time as there was some problem in doing so. She also stated that the complainant is not raising any social issues and she feels he is victimizing her .
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the contentions raised by the complainant for points no 1 & 2 of the RTI application are well founded as even after a clear direction from the FAA, the CPIO had failed to give any justification for claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. It was incumbent upon the CPIO to justify the exemption claimed by her. It is to be noted by the CPIO that merely claiming an exemption under Section 8 is not enough to absolve a CPIO from performing the duties cast upon him under the RTI Act. It is relevant to mention here that in order to deny information under any of the exemption clauses mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the respondent is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed. Both the CPIO present during the hearing and the CPIO who had given the reply could not justify their position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention of any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 other than merely mentioning the section and sub-clauses. The Commission under these circumstances is not able to conclude as to how the exemption claimed by the CPIO is justified as far as the information sought by the complainant is concerned.
The Commisison expresses its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the CPIO for her failure to give a proper reply to the complainant even after a clear direction was given to her by the FAA. This shows that the RTI matters are being handled in a very casual manner by her.
The complainant was also right in submitting that the CPIO had failed to make any necessary transfers through online portal despite the fact that a request was made by the complainant. To this, the CPIO explained that since there were some technical issues in the working of the online RTI portal at that time, therefore, all the replies and in fact any other communication which was done in relation to the RTI application was done through email only. Hence, the question of signing the reply does not arise. The Commission accepts this plea of the CPIO.
With regard to the prayer of the complainant for imposing penalty on the concerned CPIO, in the present case it cannot be concluded that there was any malafide intention on the part of the CPIO or the respondent organisation not to provide the information, As explained by the CPIO, she to the best of her knowledge and understanding of the provisions of the RTI Act while considering that the main issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court had denied to disclose the information to the complainant. Hence, the imposition of any penalty, as prayed by the complainant, does not seem to be justified.
The Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on: 01.06.2012) wherein it was held:"
61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. 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 malafides 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. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
Decision:
In view of the above, a strict warning is issued to the concerned CPIO to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and to ensure that in all the future cases, if any exemption is claimed by her, the same should be properly justified and in case such a lapse is repeated in future, the Commission will be constrained to initiate penal proceedings against her. She is also advised to choose her words carefully while giving any reply under the RTI Act and not to hurt the sentiments of any applicant as appears to have happened in the present case.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to educate the concerned officials including the CPIOs and the FAAs about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of their duties and responsibilities so that such avoidable lapses do not occur again in future.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Information Commissioner (सचना आयुक्त)
Posts
0 Comments