Negligence by PIO in RTI compliance warrants penalty under Section 20(1) due to mala fide conduct.

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/110408 IQBAL SINGH .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Ms. Mahima Madan PIO/SDM, O/o the SDM, Old Tehsil Building, Mehrauli, New Delhi - 110030 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 19.06.2024 Date of Decision : 26.06.2024 Date of SCN hearing : 27.05.2025 Date of SCN Decision : 02.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 02-12-2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 14-01-2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02-03-2023 Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2022 (offline) seeking the following information:

“You are kindly requested to know the action taken on my complaint dt. 08th Nov. 2022 regarding Deepak Sapra S/o (Lt. Col Rtd.) Ram Kishore Sapra and (Lt. Col. Rt.) Ram Kishore Sapra S/o Daulat Ram Sapra.”

Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14-01-2023. The FAA order is not on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 08.04.2024:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Devender Kumar, APIO appeared in person Order dated 12.04.2024 The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on

12.04.2024:

“The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that neither the PIO nor the FAA provided any reply to the RTI application and the first appeal till the date of hearing. It is noted that over a period of one and half year has elapsed, and the information sought has not been provided by the respondent. The respondent has not made any effort to respond to the RTI application even upon receipt of hearing notice. The respondent (APIO) who appeared before the Commission failed to explain any satisfactory reasons for non-disposal of the RTI application and the first appeal. The PIO remained absent without seeking leave from the Commission for not attending the hearing and without stating any reason for his absence. However, the APIO who appeared before the Commission assured that they would take necessary sept to enquire into the issue and thereafter will inform the appellant.

1.

In view of the above lapses, Ms. Mahima Madan, the PIO/SDM and Shri Shashipal, the then PIO are show caused as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them for not providing the information to the appellant. The present PIO is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as the show- cause notice to the then PIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All the written explanations (from both the PIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

2.

Further, the respondent is directed to provide a suitable reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks’ time from the date of receipt of this order. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.”

Relevant Facts emerging during Show-Cause Hearing on 19.06.2024 Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Dr. Shashipal Dabas, Deputy Secretary (Home), Shri Devender Kumar, Tehsildar (Mehrauli) and Shri Rohit Kumar, Sr. Assistant present in person.

The Commission passed the following observations and directions on

26.06.2024:

“The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that the Commission vide its order dated

12.04.2023 had given specific directions and observations:

“The respondent (APIO) who appeared before the Commission failed to explain any satisfa