Moneylife: Pune: Wednesday, January 24, 2018.
Anil Kumar
Agarwal, who had filed an RTI application with the Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO) of the Department of Posts in April 2015, went in for a second
appeal in January 2016 and was finally given a hearing on 19 January 2018 at
the Central Information Commission (CIC). This delay must be frustrating for
the applicant considering the urgency of his request. The information he
sought, related to his late mother’s National Savings Certificate (NSC), the
maturity amount, which was allegedly filched by his maternal uncle through
forged signatures, allegedly in connivance with the post office staff.
Central
Information Commissioner Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu, in his decision on 22
January 2018 has directed the CPIO to provide every point of information
requested by Agarwal within seven days and has slapped Rs25,000 as penalty on
the CPIO for the inordinate delay of two years and three months, in providing
the information.
Agarwal, on 7
April 2015, had sought information on the NSC held by his late mother, Premlata
Agarwal. He requested information on who encashed the payment; and whether his
mother had put her signature or thumb impression at the time of withdrawal and
sought details of the withdrawal along with certified copies of the concerned
documents.
The CPIO
declined to provide this information on 22 April 2015, under Section 8(1)(d) of
the RTI Act, 2005, which states, “There shall be no obligation to give any
citizen, information, including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that
larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.”
Agarwal filed
his first appeal but the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the CPIO’s
decision.
Agarwal
alleged that his maternal uncle has fraudulently withdrawn the deposit of his
mother’s NSC with the clandestine support of some staff members of the post
office. He filed his second appeal on 14 January 2016.
The first
proceedings of the CIC were held in June 2017, when show cause notice was given
to the senior superintendent of the post office as well as CPIO, awarding
maximum penalty and directing it to provide each and every piece of information
asked for by Agarwal.
The CIC
directed as follows:
“Shri
Ugrasen, Sr Superintendent of post office/CPIO to consider this RTI application
and appeal as the complaint and provide action taken report within 30 days from
the date of receipt of this order.
The
Commission also directs the respondent authority to provide certified copies of
every piece of paper pertaining to fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) and withdrawal
within one month to the appellant and file a compliance report to the
Commission.
The
Commission directs Shri Ugrasen, Sr Superintendent of post office/CPIO to
show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not
providing information to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt
of this Order.”
In this June
order, the CIC observed that it finds no justification to invoke the clause of
commercial confidence under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005. Terming this case as scandalous, the order
states: “The post office is expected to perform its core function of disbursing
FDRs only to the concerned depositor or their legal heirs. The appellant made a
specific allegation that the FDRs were realised by fraudulent means. The
Superintendent of the Post Office should have taken this as a serious
complaint, inquired into it and provided the action taken report. The CPIO
neither gave the information sought nor provided the action taken report. It
appears to be a scandal.’’
However, the
CPIO, in July 2017, provided irrelevant information to Agarwal and so he
registered a complaint with the CIC that he had been given incomplete
information.
CIC during
the hearing on 19 January 2018 observed: “The Commission finds that the
department has indulged in malpractice, which is in defiance of both postal
rules and RTI Act. On 19 January 2018, Shri Ugrasen, CPIO has provided written
explanation, which categorically does not provide any material information
relating to the subject matter. The CPIO is directed to provide point-wise
information to the appellant, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this
Order.”
The CIC in
its written decision on 22 January 2018 has ordered that: ``There is an
inordinate delay of two years and three months in providing information to the
appellant. The Commission finds it a fit case for imposing of maximum penalty
of Rs25,000 against Shri Ugrasen, CPIO. The appellate authority is directed to recover
the amount of Rs25,000 from the salary payable to Shri Ugrasen, CPIO, by way of
demand draft drawn in favour of ‘PAO CAT’, New Delhi in rive equal monthly
instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 23 March 2018
and the last instalment should reach by 23 June 2018.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
