2009 (4) TMI 515 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI - petitioner was sought to be proceeded against departmentally for the sin of approaching the PIO under the RTI Act - a right guaranteed to him in law. in such cases it is cold comfort for a litigant - such as the petitioner/applicant - who was driven to seek information to approach the CIC to be told that the erring official would be proceeded with departmentally especially after recording that the lapse i.e. the delay or even the unreasonableness of withholding of information was unjustified - respondent s contention regarding possible prejudice in his departmental enquiry is concerned this Court feels that an order under Section 20 would not in any manner come in the way of his defenses lawfully available to him in such proceedings. The sixth respondent is not denying the findings recorded in the order in fact he has not even challenged it - Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed in absolute terms as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy Held that - order to the extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19(8) and does not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal respondent is hereby directed to deduct the same from the sixth respondent s salary in five equal installments and deposit the amount with the Commission Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the CIC's decision to drop penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
2. Delay in providing information requested by the petitioner.
3. Validity of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner.
4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the CIC in imposing penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
5. Impact of judicial review on the CIC's decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the CIC's Decision to Drop Penalty Proceedings:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the CIC's order dated 29-5-2006, which dropped penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The CIC had noted that the information sought was eventually provided but only after the petitioner approached the CIC. Despite recognizing the delay and the lack of reasonable cause for it, the CIC chose not to impose a penalty but recommended disciplinary action against the concerned officer. The court found this decision to be erroneous, stating that the CIC failed to exercise its jurisdiction lawfully vested in it by not imposing the penalty despite the established delay.

2. Delay in Providing Information:
The petitioner sought information on 29-11-2005 regarding the service rules of SECL but did not receive a response, leading to multiple appeals. The CIC's orders on 27-3-2006 and 29-5-2006 confirmed that there was a delay in providing the information, which was eventually furnished only after the CIC's intervention. The court noted that the internal processes within SECL were insensitive to the petitioner's queries and that the delay was unjustified.

3. Validity of the Charge-Sheet Issued to the Petitioner:
The petitioner faced a charge-sheet for allegedly bypassing internal channels to seek information under the RTI Act. The court found this action to be unjustified and contrary to the purpose of the RTI Act, which does not require an applicant to demonstrate locus standi. The court emphasized that the petitioner was entitled to seek information under the Act, and the charge-sheet undermined this right.

4. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the CIC in Imposing Penalties:
Section 20 of the RTI Act allows the CIC to impose penalties for refusal to receive an application, not furnishing information within the specified time, or knowingly providing incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. The court highlighted that the CIC, after noting the delay and lack of reasonable cause, should have imposed the penalty as mandated by the Act. The CIC's decision to recommend disciplinary action instead was found to be insufficient and not in line with the statutory requirements.

5. Impact of Judicial Review on the CIC's Decisions:
The court reiterated that judicial review can correct a Tribunal's failure to exercise jurisdiction lawfully or acting contrary to legal provisions. The court found that the CIC's decision to drop the penalty was an instance where it failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. The court emphasized the importance of fostering an "openness culture" among public authorities and ensuring timely information disclosure as per the RTI Act.

Conclusion:
The court declared the CIC's order to drop the penalty as illegal and directed the third respondent to deduct the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000 from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and deposit it with the Commission. Additionally, the third respondent was ordered to bear the cost of the proceedings, quantified at Rs. 50,000, to be paid to the petitioner within six weeks. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.

← Previous Next →