के ኚ᭾ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई नि्ቤी, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील सं्ቅा/ Second Appeal No.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2022/102492 Jagjeet Singh .....अपीलकताग/Appellant VERSUS/बनाम CPIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office(EPFO), Rohtak, RTI Cell, Rohtak Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Plot No. 1, Institutional Area, Sector-3, Opp. The Little Shri School, Rohtak-124001, Haryana ...्ቚनतवािीगण/Respondent Relevant dates :

Date of Show-cause proceedings : 20.09.2023 Date of Show-cause order : 20.09.2023

सूचना आयु्ሹ ्ቦी हीरालाल सामररया

Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya Commission has initiated show-cause proceedings against the PIO The Commission while hearing the captioned appeal deemed it expedient to call explanation from the then PIO on account of an apparent lapse on his part to furnish information. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinafter:

“The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the fact that no response has ever been provided by the concerned then CPIO and/or by the present CPIO of the Respondent Public Authority to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act. In addition to the above, absence of the present CPIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof and also non- filing of any written submission in response to instant case reflects on a sheer disregard for the proceedings of the Commission. Moreover, such colossal misconduct of the incumbent CPIO tantamount to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant’s right to information and also is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act.

In view of the above, the concerned then CPIO and also the present CPIO, O/o. EPFO, Rohtak are hereby directed to send their written explanations to show cause with the Commission as to why action should not be initiated against them under Section 20 of RTI Act for not providing timely response upon receipt of RTI Application and also for their absence before the Commission during the hearing.

The aforesaid written explanation of both the CPIOs along with supportive documents, if any should reach the Commission within

15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

In compliance of the aforesaid directions, an explanation filed by the PIO, dated 31.08.2023 has been taken on record wherein it has been stated that the reply to the instant RTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant on 08.10.2021 i.e within stipulated time frame. However, the same was returned back due to door locked and insufficient address. In addition, a reply dated 08.05.2023 has been furnished to the Appellant in compliance of direction of Commission. PIO has deeply regretted for the inconvenience caused and stated that non-

appearance at the time of hearing was unintentional and beyond control.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Respondent: 1. Mr. Pawan, RPFC-II

2. Mr Alok Kumar, RPFC-II

3. Mr. Mohit Kumar PIO stated that the reply to the instant RTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time frame on 08.10.2021. However, the same was returned back due to door locked and insufficient address. Furthermore, a fresh reply dated 08.05.2023 has also been furnished to the Appellant. As regards the non-appearance at the time of hearing, he stated that he got late due to traffic and same was unintentional and beyond his control and assured to take proper care in future.

Decision:

Commission observes that as submitted by PIO reply has been sent to the Appellant within stipulated time frame on 08.10.2021 and again on 08.05.2023. In light of the aforesaid submissions,