J.P. AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition impugns the order dated 16 th January, 2009 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) imposing penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the petitioner of '12,500/- deductable in two installments of '6,250/- each from the salary of the petitioner starting from 3 rd March, 2009. The petition though came up before the Court first on 2 nd March, 2009 but no stay was granted. The petitioner on 14 th December, 2009 informed that penalty amount had been paid to the CIC and further submitted that the fault leading to the imposition of penalty was not in his functioning as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the DDA but of Mr. S.C. Gupta the then Dy. Director (Housing) of the DDA. I may notice that the CIC has vide the impugned order, while levying penalty of '12,500/- on the petitioner, levied penalty of '12,500/- on the said Shri S.C. Gupta also and deductable from his salary. On the said contention of the petitioner, the said Shri S.C. Gupta was impleaded as respondent no.4 to the petition and in fact he alone has been served with the notice of the petition. Shri S.C. Gupta has filed a counter affidavit. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent no.4 Shri S.C. Gupta have been heard.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he, as PIO of the DDA had acted with promptitude and had on the very next day of receiving the RTI application, sought information from the respondent no.4 and the delay in providing information was of the respondent no.4. It is further the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the directions of the First Appellate Authority to provide further information also, the delay in providing the same was of the said Shri S.C. Gupta.

(3.) The CIC however has in the order dated 16 th January, 2009 impugned in this petition held that it had in the earlier order dated 26 th September, 2008 (which is not before the Court) held that it is the not the delay in response for which the petitioner had been held liable but the petitioner had failed to provide the information sought and had simply forwarded a report to the information seeker without caring to examine whether the report even addressed the information sought. It was thus held that the petitioner had abdicated his responsibility as PIO. It was further held that the petitioner as the PIO of the DDA was responsible for providing the information and had failed to apply his mind as to what information was sought and what was being passed on. The said conduct of the petitioner was held to be amounting to deemed refusal of information. The petitioner has however in the writ petition failed to address the grounds on which the maximum penalty leviable under the Act had been apportioned between him and Shri S.C. Gupta and has merely reiterated that the responsibility was of Shri S.C. Gupta.