MUJIBUR REHMAN Vs. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE Rule. With consent of counsel for parties, heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29.5.2006 by which the Central Information Commission (CIC) dropped penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(3.) IT is an undisputed fact that on 10.4.2006, the third respondent company caused a letter to be issued (a copy of which has been produced in these proceedings), revealing the nature of information sought. It was specifically stated that no seniority list had been issued in the year 2004 -2005. Apparently, a copy of this letter was furnished during the course of proceedings, before the CIC. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 29.5.2006, the CIC considered the explanation of the "deemed PIO", i.e. the sixth respondent -(since the designated CPIO had required another officer i.e. Shri S.P. Chaubey, GM (Personnel and Administration) to collect and furnish the information, for convenience, a step which is permissible under the Act) - for appropriate response to the queries. The notice was specifically in terms of Section 19(8), calling upon the sixth respondent to show cause why penalty ought not to be imposed. During the course of hearing, the CIC noted that there was indeed a late response to the query made on 29.11.2005 which was eventually answered after the petitioner had approached it (the CIC) and in fact during the course of the proceedings. It also held sixth respondent culpable and directed departmental proceedings against him. However, it discharged the notice and did not impose any penalty under Section 20. The relevant part of the CIC's findings are as follows: