ISTM Logo Here

Saturday, January 19, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Penalty
Supreme Court(Penalty)/ High Courts(Penalty)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 CIC/DOEAF/C/2017/105166/ISPNR 06 Aug, 2018 Ms Rashi Agrawal Vs CPIO, SPMCIL NEW DELHI, CPIO INDIAN SECURITY PRESS NASHIK

ISSUE : Non receipt of reply from the CPIO.
DECISION : The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to RTI applications.
The Commission directed the Public Authority to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the complainant within a period of 30 days.
2 CIC/MOENF/C/2017/178184 30 Jul, 2018 Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, MOEF and Climate Change

ISSUE :The appellant sought information relating to “conflicting rules of environment – Ministry aand MIDC puts entrepreneurs in problem” on fourteen points. The appellant was not satisfied by the reply of the CPIO and the FAA on grounds of the same being improper/incomplete. The appellant also sought for compensation for the detriment caused to him for the delay in supply of information to him.
DECISION : The CPIO is directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission, duly endorsed to the appellant that in respect of para 7 of the stated RTI application complete reply was provided vide replies dated 27/6/18 and 17/4/18. Otherwise he should furnish a revised consolidated reply within 10 days from the receipt of this order to the appellant on this point.
The Commission is of the opinion that a token amount of Rs 1000/- should be paid as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused to him. This amount is to be paid by the Public Authority, MOEF and Climate Change.
3 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/102584 25 Jun, 2018 BK Porwal Vs PIO, Deptt of Posts

ISSUE :The applicant, facing an inquiry for sexual harassment, requested for documents relating to the inquiry. The CPIO rejected the request under sections 8(1)(d) and (g).
DECISION : By denying the information the appellant was not only harassed by the public authority but also by the CPIO. While the public authority denied him the documents which he was entitled under SHW Act of 2013, the CPIO denied them under RTI Act.
…..the Commission concludes that denial of information to the appellant was without any reasonable cause and hence liable for maximum penalty of Rs 25,000/-
The Commission also finds it a fit case to recommend the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO.
4 CIC/SH/C/2016/000310 19 Jan, 2018 A Gopi Krishna Vs CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Visakhapatnam

ISSUE :The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO did not respond to his RTI application.
The respondent submitted that the CPIO did not receive the complainant’s RTI application and therefore information could not be provided to him within the stipulated time.
DECISION : As per the submission of the complainant the RTI application was handed over to the bank ‘by hand’ by the brother of the appellant. The bank did not accept it, thereafter the appellant sent it by post to the respondent.
The Commission directed the FAA, Syndicate Bank, Visakhapatnam, to inquire into the matter as to whether the RTI application was received in the branch and if so, what action was taken on the RTI application. The FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers responsible for the misplacement of the RTI application. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
5 CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299248/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299253/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299257/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299258/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300147/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300149/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300150/BJ CIC/DITIN/C/2016/299250/BJ 31 Jul, 2017 Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Jharkhand

The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding total number of CAs and Advocates against whom cases had been filed before their disciplinary authorities for cancellation of practicing licenses, list of such cases, etc. The Commission observed that the responses provided by the CPIO were in total contradiction and disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission, directs the CCIT, Ranchi to conduct an enquiry either by himself or through a nominee officer of senior rank and send an enquiry report to the Commission. It was observed that the action taken by the CPIO in relation to the information sought needs to be examined carefully by the CCIT, Ranchi so that the fundamental right of the information seeker is fully respected and protected.
6 CIC/CBODT/A/2016/304262-BJ 31 Jul, 2017 Mr. Goutam Kumar Das Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Bhubaneswar

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding complete details of minutes with regard to the Review DPC proceedings based on Supreme Court Judgement in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar vs. Union of India.

The Commission directs the Respondent (ITO-Legal) to facilitate inspection of records on a mutually convenient date and time within 15 days.
7 CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299244/BJ 31 Jul, 2017 Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

CPIO denied the information on the ground that information was sought for narrow private interest and no larger public interest was going to be served with its disclosure.

The Commission observed that the responses provided by the CPIO
were in total disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and contradictory response was provided by the representative of Respondent. The commission issued showcause notice under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also advises the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the
concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
8 CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113751, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113752, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113754, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113755, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113756, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113757, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113758, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113759, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113760, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113761, CIC/C 26 Jul, 2017 Mrs. Byramma Vs. CPIO, Sr. Dy. A/c. Gen. (Admn.), O/o. The Principal Accountant General, (A & E) Karnataka, Indian Audit & Accounts, Park House Road, Bangalore-560001.

CIC directed the respondent to (a.) to make thorough search of their records with respect to the Pension Payment Order (PPO) number of Sh. Thimmaiah and give reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions enumerated under the RTI Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order; (b.) to transfer the RTI applications dated 05.10.2016 of the appellant (as enumerated in the table at para no. 34 above), within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order. The concerned Public Authority in turn are directed to give reply to the appellant, within 25 days from the date of receipt of RTI applications; and (c.) assistance should be made available to the appellant in getting information or filing RTI application/appeal as per provisions of the RTI Act.
9 CIC/SB/A/2016/000704-BJ-Final 19 Jul, 2017 Mr. R K Jain Vs. CPIO, Account Officer, Customs Excise & Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, West Block No. 2, R K Puram, New Delhi-110066

The appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copies of all order sheets/record of proceedings/ notice of hearing issued to the parties, vakalatnama and related issues. Dissatisfied by non-receipt of any information, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 22.08.2014 directed the CPIO to furnish the required information within two weeks from the date of the order. The Commission finds that as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, this is a fit case for levying of the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on CPIO for not providing the information to the Appellant. The Commission instructs the respondent to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
10 CIC/RK/A/2016/000971-AB 19 Jul, 2017 Jang Bahadur Patel Vs. Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, DRM’s Office

Show Cause notice issued to the CPIO to explain why action u/s 20 should not be taken against him for delay in providing information. The present PIO shall serve the show cause to him.
2 The then respondent CPIO is issued warning that complete and final reply to an RTI application should be provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said RTI application.
3. Since the requisite information was not provided to the appellant, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in regard to the number of MST passes issued from 01.08.2011 to 31.10.2011 and 01.09.2012 to 30.11.2012 and such other details, free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
11 CIC/YA/A/2016/000938 01 Jul, 2017 Ms. Malti Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

The appellant sought how much time will be taken to process her application dated 13.02.2015 No. 2395, Addl(DEMS) & Date 16.03.2015 No. 16466. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.07.2015. Dissatisfied response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 14.10.2015 upheld the CPIO’s reply. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission. The Commission observed that, despite sufficient lapse of time, the Respondent has not complied with the directions of the Commission. Therefore, directed to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE upon the PIO, S I, DEMS, NDMC, Civil Lines Zone, Sh. K C Sharma responsible for deliberate obstruction of information and violation of directions of the ommission. Reply to the Show Cause should reach the Commission atleast one week prior to the date of Show cause hearing, wherein the Noticee should clarify why penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him.
12 CIC/SS/C/2013/900594/SD 23 Jun, 2017 R P Aswathy vs Girls Battalion, NCC, Coimbatore

Section 18 Complaint to Commission. Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty. The Commission held that the conduct of the concerned CPIO is in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and appears to be without any plausible cause. Further, since the reply of the CPIO does not mention whether he is the CPIO or not, for the purposes of the said matter it will deemed hereon that Col. AK Singh is the then CPIO i.e CPIO at the time of replying to the RTI Application.

The Commission issued to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under the provisions of Sections 20(1) & (2) of the RTI Act for providing an inappropriate and incomplete reply on the RTI Application.
13 CIC/SA/A/2015/002146/MP 30 Mar, 2017 Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, Bhiwani Vs. National Council of Teachers Education, New Delhi

Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, the appellant, sought clarification whether the candidate having History in B.Ed could teach Social Studies with a copy of the relevant rules along with the rules regarding the subjects required to have been studied in B.Ed for becoming a teacher of Social Studies. CIC held that, CPIO had not complied with the order of the FAA and had not supplied the information within the stipulated period of seven days, therefore, directs the CPIO to (i) send a reply to the appellant with a copy to the Commission, (ii) submit his explanation for not responding to the RTI application and not complying with the order of the FAA, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
14 CIC/BS/C/2015/000112 29 Mar, 2017 Mr. Prateek Gadpalliwar Vs. Central Public Information Officer Sr. Supdt., Deptt. of Posts, Chanrapur

The complainant filed RTI application seeking information on 10 points regarding: number of revolving chairs purchased; name of the shop from which revolving chairs were purchased; copy of administrative approval received from higher authority regarding purchase of revolving chairs etc. It is ordered that the Director, Accounts (Postal), Nagpur is treated as ‘deemed CPIO’. He is directed to show cause in writing his detailed explanation that why action should not be taken against him for delay in providing the information and why fine should not be imposed on him.
15 CIC/BS/C/2014/000324 28 Mar, 2017 Ashok Kumar Chaurasia, Vs. Central Public Information Officer Dy. DGM, Deptt. of Posts, Lucknow

The complainant filed RTI application seeking information on 5 points regarding Postal Life Insurance policy. CIC issued show cause notice to the respondent why action should not be taken against him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act including for the delay in giving final reply and the transfer of the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, giving reasons for the delay.
Total Case uploaded: 57