Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Friday,
January 9Th, 2026.
The CGHS case involved discrepancies over a prescribed drug, while the DJB official was fined ₹10,000 for evasive replies and missing statutory timelines.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) has issued a show-cause notice to a Central
Government Health Scheme (CGHS) official and imposed a monetary penalty on a
Delhi Jal Board (DJB) official in two separate cases linked to the handling of
applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
In the first matter, information commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha initiated action against a CGHS official after finding inconsistencies in submissions made before the commission regarding supply of a prescribed medicine to a beneficiary. The case arose from an RTI application, filed by a CGHS beneficiary, who claimed that a medicine prescribed by a government doctor reached the CGHS Wellness Centre at Patparganj but was not issued to the patient.
The order said, “It is pertinent to mention that the commission has observed discrepancy in the submissions made by the respondent regarding non-receipt of medicine LAMITOR OD 100 MG.”
The commission recorded that the official attempted to equate a generic medicine with the sustained-release drug prescribed by the specialist. The order said the official was “trying to mislead the bench” by calling both the medicines same.
The commission held that the senior CMO-cum-APIO “not only misled the commission but also vitiated the proceedings of the hearing.”
The order directed the official to show cause as to why “maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed” and why disciplinary action should not be recommended under Section 20(2) of the law.
In addition, the commission directed CGHS authorities to review several RTI queries and provide records after applying the severability clause under Section 10 of the RTI Act, which allows partial disclosure of records after removing exempt portions.
In a separate order, chief information commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on a public information officer of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) for failing to provide information sought under the RTI Act within the prescribed time.
The commission noted that the RTI application was filed in October 2022, but a response addressing the queries was provided in September 2024. The delay, the commission said, continued until its intervention.
The order observed that “information in the form of a proper reply” was given nearly two years after the application was filed.
“The reason for the delay in providing the information has nowhere been explained,” the commission said.
The RTI application was filed by Vijay Kumar Verma, who had sought details related to water bill payments and raised concerns over the calculation of consumption units and applicable rates.
The commission noted that earlier responses sent to the applicant did not address the queries and were “evasive”.
After examining the record, the commission held that the conduct amounted to a violation of the law governing access to information. It imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on the official, directing that the amount be paid in two instalments by February 27, 2026.
The two cases, the commission noted, highlighted failures by public authorities to comply with timelines and disclosure obligations under the RTI Act.
The CGHS case involved discrepancies over a prescribed drug, while the DJB official was fined ₹10,000 for evasive replies and missing statutory timelines.
In the first matter, information commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha initiated action against a CGHS official after finding inconsistencies in submissions made before the commission regarding supply of a prescribed medicine to a beneficiary. The case arose from an RTI application, filed by a CGHS beneficiary, who claimed that a medicine prescribed by a government doctor reached the CGHS Wellness Centre at Patparganj but was not issued to the patient.
The order said, “It is pertinent to mention that the commission has observed discrepancy in the submissions made by the respondent regarding non-receipt of medicine LAMITOR OD 100 MG.”
The commission recorded that the official attempted to equate a generic medicine with the sustained-release drug prescribed by the specialist. The order said the official was “trying to mislead the bench” by calling both the medicines same.
The commission held that the senior CMO-cum-APIO “not only misled the commission but also vitiated the proceedings of the hearing.”
The order directed the official to show cause as to why “maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed” and why disciplinary action should not be recommended under Section 20(2) of the law.
In addition, the commission directed CGHS authorities to review several RTI queries and provide records after applying the severability clause under Section 10 of the RTI Act, which allows partial disclosure of records after removing exempt portions.
In a separate order, chief information commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on a public information officer of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) for failing to provide information sought under the RTI Act within the prescribed time.
The commission noted that the RTI application was filed in October 2022, but a response addressing the queries was provided in September 2024. The delay, the commission said, continued until its intervention.
The order observed that “information in the form of a proper reply” was given nearly two years after the application was filed.
“The reason for the delay in providing the information has nowhere been explained,” the commission said.
The RTI application was filed by Vijay Kumar Verma, who had sought details related to water bill payments and raised concerns over the calculation of consumption units and applicable rates.
The commission noted that earlier responses sent to the applicant did not address the queries and were “evasive”.
After examining the record, the commission held that the conduct amounted to a violation of the law governing access to information. It imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on the official, directing that the amount be paid in two instalments by February 27, 2026.
The two cases, the commission noted, highlighted failures by public authorities to comply with timelines and disclosure obligations under the RTI Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
