Central Information CommissionMr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 February, 2011CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                       Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003396/11000Penalty
                                                                      Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003396

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :       Mr. Harish Kumar,
                                             628/3,Shiavaji Road,
                                             Pul Mithai,
                                             Delhi 110006.

Respondent                           :       Mr. Anil Kumar GuptaPublic Information Officer-I &
                                             Administrative Officer -I,
                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                             Central Establishment Department
                                             22nd Floor, Civic Center, Minto Road,
                                             New Delhi 110002.RTI application filed on             :       25/06/2010
PIO replied                          :       26/07/2010
First appeal filed on                :       30/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order      :       21/08/2010
Second AA order                              08/09/2010
Second Appeal received on            :       02/12/2010

Information Sought:1. Details and copy of the validity of the circular no.UDC -1/CED2/98/RK/3.6 dated 20-09-1978
       under CMP no. 4782/96,5120/96 in CWP NO.4598/95 titled kapoor chand vs MCD& owners.2. Details and copy of the name, post, dates of the officers who overruled the circular and continued
       with the Adhoc promotions. from 20-07-1998 till date.3. Copy of the name post date of the SC/STs post wise physical strength, post wise vacancy and
       seniority list. copy and no. of the FIR of the breaking of seal from 31-12-2007 till date.4. Copy of the files and actions taken by the officer of diary no.112/AC/SPZ dated 13-04-2010 to
       diary no.2012/AO/CED(j)dated 3-05-2010.5. copy of files of RTI no.209.G.n.0245744 dated 22-07-2009 and 1st appeal no.141 dated 24-08-
       2009.6. Copy of the actions taken over certified no.6882 dated 23-06-2008 and diary no 8048/dir(P)7. Copy of actions taken over all the relevant documents.8. Number of officers who under Act 1957 have been awarded delegation of power from 1/04/2008
       to 25/06/2010.9. copy of central establishment department 's manual 1 to 17 till 25/06/2010.10. Details of question 1,2,3 to be provided on www.mcdonline.gov.in11. Details of designation of officers who can pass the circulars.Reply of the PIO:Invited to inspect the records of the department.Page 1 of 5First Appeal :Reply to question no 1 dealt with circular no. UDC(t)-1/EED(2)/98/r.k.36DT dated 20-07-1998 and court
hence was not answered. Adhoc promotions related to various departments rules and is thus not subject to
any inspection.Question no 3 deals with RDA and hence needs no inspection.Question no.4 diary no. is the copy of the file dated 03/05/2010 hence requires no investigation.
Question 5 deals with RTI 209 and hence requires no investigation.
Information of question 6 is related to certificate no.6882 dated 23-06-2008and again needs no further
information.Order of the FAA:Appellant called for hearing on 27-08-2010 with the CED who must provide the information to the
appellant within 10 working days.2nd Order of FAA;Since the appellant rejects the request of PIO to inspect the request of the department and has been
dissatisfied with the hearing, the CED is asked to provide the information to the appellant within 10
working days.Ground of the Second Appeal:Even after the FAA order inadequate information has been supplied.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 17 January 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar;Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer -II;"The Appellant states that during the hearing at the First appellate Authority (FAA), the FAA had
agreed with the Appellant that there was no need for inspection and claims that this was written in the
attendance register where the Appellant had signed. The order of the FAA appears to be completely
contrary to the claim of the Appellant. The Appellant has also explained before the Commission how in
all his queries except query-02 there was no need for collating any information and he had given specific
number of circulars and details by which the PIO had only to send him photocopies. The Appellant has
made a very serious charge against the FAA and the Commission summons the First Appellate Authority
Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Dy. Law Officer (CED) to appear before the Commission with a copy of attendance
register where the Appellant has signed his presence on the day of hearing.The PIO should have provided the information on the other queries and there appears to be no reason for
not providing the information except in the case of query-02. The PIO appears to have been very careless
and not wanting to provide the information sought by the Appellant, asking to come for the inspection
where specific records have been sought as an example the PIO admits that as far as query-03 is
concerned there is no roster of SC/ST Category Officers for the seniority. The PIO had only to state that
the roster is not available.As regards query-02 the Appellant states that he would be satisfied if he got information the post of
Additional Commissioner, Dy. Commissioner, Additional Dy. Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner
and Administrative Officer for period 2005 to 2010. If the PIO can supply this information he will
information the Appellant in writing before 21 January 2011. If it is not possible to provide this
information the Respondent will facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on
02/02/2011 from 11.00AM onwards."Page 2 of 5Commission's Decision dated 17/01/2011:The Appeal was allowed."The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 30 January 2011.The Commission summons the First Appellate Authority Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Dy. Law
Officer (CED) to appear before the Commission on 07 February 2011 at 04.30PM
alongwith a copy of attendance register where the Appellant has signed his presence on the
day of hearing.The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of theRTI Act.It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions ofSection 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 07 February 2011 at 4.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
underSection 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant."Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 07 February 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar;Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, PIO-I & AO (CED-I); Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Public Information
Officer & Administrative Officer -II (CED-II); Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, PIO & AO (CED-III); Mr. Ravinder
Kumar, DLO & FAA;The FAA Mr. Ravinder Kumar has stated that he did record in his register that the Appellant has stated
that there was no need to inspect the records and he should be provided the information as per the
available records. However, he states that he did no agree with this contention completely as he has
recorded in the order given by him. The Commission accepts the explanation of the FAA and drops the
proceedings against him.The PIO has given the information on most of the queries but states that he is not able to locate
the dairy number mentioned by the Appellant in query-04. The Appellant states that he will meet the PIO
on 09 February 2011 at 11.00AM at the office of the PIO-I where he will identify the communication
from the diary register.Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, PIO-I will provide the information once the Appellant
identifies the communication within 15 days time.As regards query-07 the PIO states that they have been able to trace the communications until they
reached the office of the Assistant Commissioner (CED). However, after this there is no trace of the
communications.Page 3 of 5The Commission directs the Assistant Commissioner CED to lodge an FIR for the
lost communications and send a copy to the Appellant before 05 March 2011
The RTI application had been filed on 26/06/2010. On 08/09/2010 the FAA has directed the PIOs to
provide the information within 10 working days i.e. before 25/09/2010. Instead no information was
provided was provided to the Appellant and only after the order of the Commission on 17/01/2011 the
information has been provided to the Appellant on 28/01/2011. Thus it was possible to provide the
information within 11 days of the order of the Commission. Instead the information has been provided
after 122 days delay from 25/09/2010. The Commission inquired from the three PIOs to identify which of
them was responsible for the delay. Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, PIO-I & AO accepts that he is responsible for
the delay in providing the information.Section 20 (1)of the RTI Act states, "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) ofsection 7or 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."
A plain reading ofSection 20reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must
impose penalty:1)      Refusal to receive an application for information.
2)      Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) ofsection 7- 30
        days.
3)      Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete ormisleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request4)      Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'.Section 19 (5)of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a
denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section
(1) ofsection 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty
each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable
cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified inSection 20 (1)of the RTI Act and the
law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was
justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as perSection 19(5)of the RTI Act.Page 4 of 5Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days the Commission imposes the
maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTIACT on Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, PIO-I &
AO.Decision:As per the provisions ofSection 20 (1)of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, PIO-I & AO. Since the
delay in providing the complete information has been over 100 days, the Commission is
passing an order penalizing Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta `25000/ which is the maximum penalty
under the Act.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta and remit the same by a
demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT,
payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar
and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta and remitted by the 10th of
every month starting from March 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by
10th of July, 2011.This decision is announced in open chamber.Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as perSection 7(6)of RTI Act.Shailesh Gandhi
                                                                                            Information Commissioner
                                                                                                     07 February 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ns))


CC:To,

1-        Commissioner
          Municipal Corporation of Delhi
          Town Hall, Delhi- 1100062.        Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
          Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
          Central Information Commission,
          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
          New Delhi - 110066

3-        Assistant Commissioner CED through Mr. Ravinder Kumar, FAAPage 5 of 5