ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sat, Jun 03, 2023
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Penalty
Supreme Court(Penalty)/ High Courts(Penalty)
16 CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299244/BJ
(88.62 KB) pdf icon
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.
17 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
(91.46 KB) pdf icon
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.
18 CIC/SB/A/2016/000704-BJ-Final
(170.54 KB) pdf icon
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.
19 CIC/RK/A/2016/000971-AB
(248.88 KB) pdf icon
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.
20 CIC/YA/A/2016/000938
(202.25 KB) pdf icon
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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 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)
29 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.
30 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.
Total Case uploaded: 66