ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Tue, Oct 15, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Penalty
Supreme Court(Penalty)/ High Courts(Penalty)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
16 CIC/SS/C/2013/900594/SD
(108.28 KB) pdf icon
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.
17 CIC/SA/A/2015/002146/MP
(20.17 KB) pdf icon
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.
18 CIC/BS/C/2015/000112
(59.00 KB) pdf icon
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.
19 CIC/BS/C/2014/000324
(58.88 KB) pdf icon
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.
20 CIC/BS/C/2015/000164
(57.55 KB) pdf icon
28 Mar, 2017 Mr. M.L. Banga, Vs. Central Public Information Officer, DE(BSS), MTNL,New Delhi

The respondent is directed to ascertain the names of CPIOs who held the charge during the relevant period and serve a copy of this order on them. Each of these CPIOs are directed to show-cause: (a) the reasons for delay in sending the reply during the period they held the charge (b) why penalty should not be imposed on them.
21 CIC/BS/A/2015/001455/12027
(59.92 KB) pdf icon
05 Jan, 2017 R Rana vs Department of Posts, Dhanbad & Anr.

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty. Information not supplied within specified period of 30 days. The Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in its decision dated 04/03/2010, wherein, while setting aside the penalty order passed by the SIC held that the penalty provisions under section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is a delay and it is explained, the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. The Commission further held that the submissions of the then CPIO are credible and dropped the penalty proceedings with a warning to be more careful in future while discharging his duties as envisaged under the RTI Act.
22 CIC/YA/A/2015/002769
(167.47 KB) pdf icon
02 Jan, 2017 Krishan Lal Sachdeva vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi

Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty — Incorrect information supplied — the appellant sought to know the reasons for demolition of construction — the Commission held that this is shameful and gross injustice, one which is condemnable. Demolition of a property with respect to which there is no specific Court order while the owner of the property is denied an opportunity to even cite his explanation and simply on an ad-hoc basis, at the whims and fancy of the officer concerned a structure is removed. When the property owner seeks to know when was the demolition order and on what basis was the structure demolished the PIO has the audacity to cite an unrelated order of the High Court thereby misleading the person who is already suffering because of the dictatorial and whimsical act of the PIO has not only misled the Appellant but even in his reply to the Show Cause he has attempted to sideline the actual issue and maneuvered the entire focus on an irrelevant unconnected issue, which has arisen and is pending adjudication before the Court. Guilty of violating provisions of the RTI Act by knowingly disseminating incorrect information and misleading the Commission, hence in terms of provisions of the section 20 of the RTI Act a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- is imposed on him.
23 CIC/SA/A/2016/000389
(53.04 KB) pdf icon
23 Nov, 2016 Yogesh Gupta vs PIO, Delhi University

The Commission directs, the then CPIO and the then Deputy Controller of Examinations (Revaluation), (the deemed PIO of Delhi University, to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for denying the inspection and access of answer sheets to the appellant. Section 19(8)(a)(iv)
24 CIC/BS/A/2015/001081/10951-Penalty
(62.10 KB) pdf icon
29 Jul, 2016 Dev Raj Sharma vs MTNL, Delhi & Ann.

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period.

The Commission held that that no adequate reason has been cited for not furnishing any timely response to the RTI application. The inaction on the part of the then CPIO is clearly a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and since no reasonable cause has been offered by him for the delay he has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty @ Rs. 250 per day in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
25 CIC/YA/A/2015/001023
(615.31 KB) pdf icon
23 Jun, 2016 Dharambir Saini vs NDMC, Delhi

Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information

The Commission held that simple queries of the citizen have not been addressed/ answered and information which should be readily available have been made virtually inaccessible by transfer of the applications from one officer to the other purposelessly and when a superior officer directs that information should be furnished such directions are completely ignored as if they were never passed. The AE who attended the hearing did not bother to inform either the PIO or the JE to ensure that the FAA's orders are complied with. Penalty imposed.
26 CIC/VS/A/2013/002030/SH (Show Cause Notice) CIC/SH/A/2014/003034
(226.85 KB) pdf icon
24 May, 2016 Jaiprakesh Upadhaya Vs. Central Bank of India, Saharsa

Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not providing the information within specified period of thirty days

The Commission held even though there was delay on CPIO's part in sending a reply to the Appellant, there is nothing on record to show a deliberate or malafide intent on his part in not sending a reply to the Appellant in time. The Commission further held that in case collection of information is likely to take more time, an interim reply should be sent to all concerned, informing them that the information is being collected.
27 CIC/KY/C/2016/000008 CIC/KY/A/2016/000009
(178.07 KB) pdf icon
22 Apr, 2016 Akshay Kr. Malhotra vs DDA, New Delhi

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty.

The Commission held that the petitioner has filed petitions in composite nature whereby, the petitioner has sought relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act and also the penal action along with disciplinary action against the respondents under sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act. Thus, these petitions may be legally construed as composite petitions. The composite petition of such nature is not legally tenable, simply because, if the relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) is allowed on such composite petition, the incorporation of section 19(3) of the RTI Act would be rendered as redundant and meaningless. The relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/ s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission.

Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub-clause (1) & sub-clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. Composite petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.
28 CIC/RM/A/2014/004572-SA CIC/RM/A/2014/004573-SA
(357.65 KB) pdf icon
21 Apr, 2016 Anil Kumar Gupta vs National Institute of Open Schooling

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty.

The Commission held that the NIOS has breached the law and the settled principles of natural justice by allowing party like Joint Director, to hear appeal of the appellant as FAA resulting in unjustified and biased The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavor should not participate in arising from such a decision. There is a strong prima facie case that the concerned Joint Director might tampered with the documents to wrongfully to show that the appellant was not performing well. The Commission directed the CPIO and the concerned Joint Director to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for misleading the Commission and making allegations that the appellant was misusing the Act. The Commission also directed the concerned Joint Director to show cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for hearing first appeal being an interested party and directed the public authority to explain why compensation of Rs. 50,000/ should not be paid to the appellant.
29 CIC/RM/C/2014/000063/SA
(255.24 KB) pdf icon
04 Apr, 2016 R G. Nangia Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information. Delay explained satisfactorily.

The Commission held that the appellant is misusing RTI to harass the authority because he was removed from the service. He has every right to challenge his termination before appropriate forum. Having heard the submission of appellant and PIO the Commission found the explanation satisfactory and dropped the penalty proceedings.
30 CIC/SA/A/2015/001769
(262.30 KB) pdf icon
11 Mar, 2016 Nand Lal vs Department of Legal Affairs

Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty for not providing the information.

The Commission held that the Public authority and the notary are under a legal duty to protect and preserve such records/registers. If records are truly eaten away the termite, they owe an explanation to the people why they failed to prevent it. They also have a duty to give (i) list of records damaged by termite; (ii) list of those survived termite attack; and (iii) partially damaged records. If termite attack is claimed by the notary public, the genuineness of same has to be verified by the regulatory. If it was found to be wrongful claim the public authority should have taken necessary action against persons responsible for same. Section 4(I)(a) and (b) of the RTI Act imposed an obligation on notary and legal affairs department (public authority) to publish three lists.

The Commission considered Smt. Meena Sharma as deemed PIQ and directed her to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against her for not facilitating inspection of records through public authority as ordered by First appellate The Commission also directed Smt. Meena Sharma to furnish the certified copies of extracts from the notary registers as sought under the public authority and to explain why Commission should not direct the Department of Legal Affairs and her to give suitable compensation to the appellant.
Total Case uploaded: 61