9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 dated 9-6-2011 for more than a fortnight. He therefore, sent a reminder dated 24-6-2011 to the CPIO and the same was received in the office of the Public Authority on the same day. Subsequently, two more reminders were sent vide letters dated 1-7-2011 and 9-7-2011. Finally, copies of 383 pages of a Register maintained by Shri Pramod Kumar were furnished only on 22-7-2012. Thus the 30 days time available with the CPIO as mentioned in Section 7 of the RTI Acthad already been lapsed as the CPIO given a reply on 6-6-2011 to the RTI-request dated 2-5-2011. The CPIO never contested that he had sent all the three letters to the deemed CPIO. Thus, the Commission is of the considered view that both Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers dated 24-6-2011, 9-7-2011. The CPIO vide his letter dated 22-7-2011 provided the requisite documents to the appellant. 4. Having considered the submissions of the CPIO and the appellant, the Commission observes that there is a delay of 42 days in providing of requisite records to the appellant. The documents requested on 9-6-2011 after inspection, were provided only on 22-7-2011. The FAA, CESTAT is hereby directed to consider the submissions of Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and identify the person responsible for the delay and recover the penalty amount from him. If both are responsible, the penalty should be recovered on pro-rata basis from both Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, Deemed CPIO. 5. Penalty of Rs. 10,500/- (R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is malicious. According to him, there was no delay in furnishing the information, the explanations given by these two officers were reasonable, and he (FAA) was not in a position to apportion the penalty between two officers. He further stated that it is the prerogative of the Information Commissioner to decide whether the explanation is reasonable or otherwise. He therefore, submitted that it would be highly desirable that this aspect of the decision regarding apportionment of penalty also be decided by the Information Commissioner herself. 5. Perused the documents available in the file, including oral and written submissions of the respondents and the letter dated 15-6-2012 of the First Appellate Authority. 6. In brief, the FAA has m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required by him. With regard to other Inspection Notes, the copies of 813 pages were provided to Shri Jain on 27-6-2011. 10. However, no information was provided to him in respect of his Inspection Memo No. 87 dated 9-6-2011 for more than a fortnight. He therefore, sent a reminder dated 24-6-2011 to the CPIO and the same was received in the office of the Public Authority on the same day. Subsequently, two more reminders were sent vide letters dated 1-7-2011 and 9-7-2011. Finally, copies of 383 pages of a Register maintained by Shri Pramod Kumar were furnished only on 22-7-2012. 11. Section 7 of the RTI Act is about disposal of request. The extracts of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI Act are reproduced below : 7. Disposal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een 14-7-2011 to 21-7-2011 cannot be treated as a period of malicious delay having regard to his other pre-occupations and also the fact he was not the CPIO or deemed CPIO as applicant refers to him. 13. The extracts from sub-sections (4) (5) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are reproduced below : (4) The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties. (5) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs. 5,250/- is imposed on each of them viz., Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar the then CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, Deemed CPIO. The amount shall be recovered in 2 monthly instalments of Rs. 2,625/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred twenty-five only) each from both Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, deemed CPIO, from their pay and allowances from the month starting January, 2013 to February, 2013. 17. The head of Public Authority shall direct the salary paying authority to effect these payments by crediting the penalty amount to the following head : Head of Account No. 2070 - Other Administrative Services 32-Central Information Commission 32-1-71 - Other Receipts OR The bank draft of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
