9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 467 - Commission - Indian LawsComplaint has been made under section 18 of the RTI Act aggrieved with the alleged misconduct of the CPIO and deemed CPIO of Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ( CESTAT ). - The Complainant in his RTI Application had sought certain information in relation to the CESTAT inquiry committee appointed by the Hon ble President CESTAT. Held that - It appears that the CPIO, CESTAT and the Registrar, CESTAT need not be penalized under Section 20 of the RTI Act, given the peculiar circumstances of the present case. The CPIO as well as the Registrar, CESTAT, in view of the Commission, did not act with mala fide intent or ulterior motive and were perhaps under the mistake of law, especially given the fact that the President, CESTAT being the administrative head of CESTAT had issued certain directions which were binding on the CPIO and the Registrar, CESTAT otherwise. The confusion was perhaps created since the administrative directions issued to the CPIO were conflicting with his statutory duties prescribed under the RTI Act and hence, it will be too harsh to impose penalty on CPIO/Registrar in this case. However, it will be appropriate to warn the CPIO and Deemed CPIO to be careful of making such mistakes and to not be forgetful of the code of judicial propriety which is enshrined in the scheme of the RTI Act.With the above directions, this Complaint is accordingly disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged misconduct of CPIO and deemed CPIO of CESTAT. 2. Withholding of information directed to be provided by FAA. 3. Compliance with the Commission's earlier order. 4. Validity and existence of the inquiry report. 5. Applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 6. Penalization under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Misconduct of CPIO and Deemed CPIO of CESTAT: The Complainant alleged that the CPIO and deemed CPIO of CESTAT knowingly and with mala fide intention withheld information that was directed to be provided by the FAA of CESTAT. The CPIO and Registrar, CESTAT, were found to have not acted with mala fide intent or ulterior motive but were under a mistake of law due to conflicting administrative directions from the President, CESTAT. 2. Withholding of Information Directed to be Provided by FAA: The FAA of CESTAT had directed the CPIO to obtain and furnish a copy of the Inquiry Report to the Complainant within 15 days. However, the CPIO and Registrar did not comply with this directive, citing the appointment of a new inquiry committee and the invalidity of the previous report. 3. Compliance with the Commission's Earlier Order: The Commission had earlier directed the FAA of CESTAT to inform the Complainant about the status of the Inquiry Report and provide a copy once finalized by the President, CESTAT. The FAA's order was not complied with, leading to the current complaint. The Commission reiterated that the CPIO must comply with the FAA's order and provide the report within 15 days. 4. Validity and Existence of the Inquiry Report: The Commission clarified that the Inquiry Report, despite being found unsatisfactory and leading to a fresh inquiry, still constitutes "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The report remains part of the official records and must be provided to the Complainant as per the earlier directive. 5. Applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act: The Respondent authority did not rely on Section 8(1)(h) to justify withholding the report. The Commission noted that merely ordering a fresh inquiry does not exempt the report from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h). The Respondent failed to show how disclosure would impede the new inquiry. 6. Penalization under Section 20 of the RTI Act: The Commission decided not to penalize the CPIO and Registrar under Section 20, considering the peculiar circumstances and lack of mala fide intent. However, they were warned to avoid such mistakes in the future and adhere to the judicial propriety under the RTI Act. Conclusion: The Commission directed the CPIO, CESTAT, to comply with the FAA's order and provide the Inquiry Report to the Complainant within 15 days, free of cost. The complaint was disposed of with a warning to the CPIO and Deemed CPIO to exercise caution in the future.
|
