WP (C) No.3845/2007

Page 1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Pronounced on : 28.04.2009

+

W.P. (C) 3845/2007

MUJIBUR REHMAN

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Girija Krishan Verma, Advocate.

versus

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri,

Advocate for Resp-3&6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers

Yes

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be

reported in the Digest?

Yes

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court)

%

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. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioner sought information through an application

dated 29.11.2005, in respect of service rules of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). It is

undisputed that despite the application, he did not receive any response; he was constrained to

2009:DHC:1766

WP (C) No.3845/2007

Page 2

prefer an appeal which was of no avail. He, therefore, approached the CIC on 16.3.2006, by way

of a second appeal. On 27.3.2006, the CIC made the following order: -

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.”

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

2009:DHC:1766

WP (C) No.3845/2007

Page 3

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: -

2009:DHC:1766

WP (C) No.3845/2007

Page 4

In our Decision of 27/3/’06 we had asked Chaubey treated as PIO, to show cause by

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.”

5. The petitioner contends that after having noted about the burden of proving that the

concerned individual or public officer had acted diligently, being on the individual, and further

holding that there was no reasonable cause for the delay, the CIC fell into error in notimposing

the penalty and in merely recommending disciplinary action. In addition to attacking the order

as arbitrary and unjustified, the petitioner contends that he had to shockingly face a charge-

sheet, and even though he has now been promoted, the third respondent has not indicated

that the charge-sheet has been dropped. The petitioner contends that the allegation in the

2009:DHC:1766

WP (C) No.3845/2007

Page 5

charge sheet was his (the petitioner’s) dereliction in filing an application,