Failure to provide information within the statutory time limit and ignoring directives of the Information Commission constitutes gross negligence, justifying the imposition of penalties under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 20(1) - Failure to provide information within statutory limits - Imposition of penalty - The Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to respond to the RTI application despite the statutory mandate and subsequent directions by the Commission - Conduct reflects gross negligence and deliberate disregard towards statutory obligations - Penalty imposed upon the respective PIOs for failure to comply with RTI provisions and Commission’s directions. (Paras 7, 8, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding sanctioned promotional posts, vacancies for nursing staff, and the absence of Departmental Promotion Committee meetings over a 12-year period. Following a lack of response from the PIO and the First Appellate Authority, the appellant moved the Commission. Despite an initial order from the Commission directing the respondent to provide information, the respondent failed to comply, leading to show-cause proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the respondent’s failure to respond was a result of mala fide intent and gross negligence. The First Appellate Authority also failed to ensure compliance with the Commission's earlier orders.

Issues: Whether the PIO is liable for penalty under the Act for non-response and failure to comply with the Commission's directions regarding the provision of requested information.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the statutory timeline prescribed under the RTI Act and blatant disregard for the Commission’s remedial directions warrants disciplinary action in the form of a pecuniary penalty under Section 20(1) to ensure accountability of public officials.

Result: Penalties imposed on the former and current PIOs; respondent directed to provide point-wise information within three weeks.

Table of Content
1. submission of rti application and subsequent appellate failure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. commission notes non-compliance and directs explanation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. imposition of penalties for failure to adhere to rti mandate. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on	: 18.10.2023
PIO replied on	: Not on record
First appeal filed on	: 13.12.2023
First Appellate Authority’s order	: Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated	: 06.02.2024

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Note: According to the information made available by Public Information Officer, Health Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi under Right to Information Act, 2005, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, out of total 352 sanctioned promotional posts of Senior Nursing Officers 294 posts, out of total 62 sanctioned promotional posts of Assistant Nursing Superintendent 31 posts, out of total 8 sanctioned promotional posts of Deputy Nursing Superintendent 4 posts and all 5 promotional posts of Nursing Superintendents, 2 promotional posts of Chief Nursing Officer as of now are lying vacant in Municipal Corporation and since last '12' years violating model calendar for holding 'DPCs', there's no 'DPC' conducted to fill up the same in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, causing Nursing Officers to retire without even a single promotion in their entire service career of 30-36 years, demoralizing the entire cadre to its lowest levels. Besides out of total sanctioned 1308 direct recruitment posts of Nursing Officers 324 are lying vacant as well and despite opening of new facilities no new posts are sanctioned, causing not only tremendous increase in workload upon the Nursing Cadre Officers.

It is astonishing to note that a country which has recently faced such a pandemic 'Covid-19' and was going all out to praise its medical fraternity, is actually dealing with Nursing Fraternity in such a bad manner, affecting their fundamental right of 'consideration for promotion', and also since, as per G.I., DOPT O.M. no. 22911/9/98-Estt. (D), dated 14.12.2000, in case of non-adherence to the time frame prescribed in Model Calendar for DPCs as envisaged in G.I. DOPT, O.M. of even number dated 08.09.1998; Municipal Corporation of Delhi is required to take steps to fix responsibility of the concerned for the lapse in this regard.

It is learnt that recently 'Nurses Welfare Association (Regd.), has issued its notice dated 22.09.2023, concerning above, clearly indicating of their going on complete indefinite strike w.e.f. 01.12.2023, which would but obviously affect public/patients at large for the misdemeanor of the officers of Health Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. As such, The applicant is seeking information for and on behalf of his Client 'Delhi Equality Forum (Regd.), an NGO which intends to file a Public Interest Litigation for the aforesaid, especially seeking fixing of responsibility of those officials/officers of Health Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, who were responsible for not conducting 'DPCs' during last 12 years, despite ready availability of final seniority list way back since year 2012, as such, this application is preferred under aforesaid specific sections of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reproduced herein below for sake of convenience of the Public Information Officer:

Right to Information Act, 2005

Section 4 (1) (d):

4. (1) Every public authority shall -

(a) ------

(b) ------

(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

Section 6:

6 (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6667

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, Information CommissionerPardeep Kumar – AppellantVersusPIO, Municipal Corporation Of Delhi – RespondentCIC/MCDND/A/2024/104007

Failure to provide information within the statutory time limit and ignoring directives of the Information Commission constitutes gross negligence, justifying the imposition of penalties under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Pardeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Municipal Corporation Of Delhi – Respondent
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/104007