New Delhi, Sep 9: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has fined two railway officials a total of Rs 20,000 for failing to handle an RTI application properly and not discharging their statutory responsibilities.
It also ordered that a caution issued to the then first appellate authority over his handling of the RTI plea be noted in his service record, observing that existing records cannot be mechanically denied.
The officers had denied an RTI plea, saying it was outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The commission imposed a penalty of Rs 15,000 on the present Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Southern Railway and Rs 5,000 on the then CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The RTI applicant had sought complete file relating to his charge sheet, including correspondence, notes and remarks, apart from details of his revision petition and action taken on his request for its early disposal.
The CIC said the information sought “pertains to his own disciplinary proceedings and revision petition” and substantially related to information held by or under the control of the public authority.
Such requests, it said, “cannot be summarily rejected by invoking Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
During the hearing, the present CPIO failed to provide a “cogent or plausible explanation” as to why the information sought was considered outside the scope of Section 2(f), the commission said.
It also observed that the official appeared to be mixing up two RTI applications of the complainant. The CIC further noted that although the CPIO claimed that documents relating to the charge sheet had already been supplied, no documentary evidence, proof of dispatch or acknowledgement was placed on record.
“Mere oral assertions made during the hearing, without supporting documentary evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of compliance with the RTI Act,” the CIC said.
Reiterating the scope of Section 2(f), the commission said copies of existing records, correspondence, file notings, dates and action-taken records are covered by the definition of information, subject to exemptions under the RTI Act.
The public authority “cannot avoid disclosure merely by describing a query as a question or by mechanically invoking Section 2(f),” it said.
The CIC found “serious procedural and substantive lapses” in the handling of the RTI application and said the conduct of the present CPIO reflected a “casual approach” towards statutory obligations under the RTI Act and proceedings before the commission.
The commission also strictly cautioned the then first appellate authority for incorrectly invoking Section 2(f) while dealing with requests for identifiable records and directed that the caution be noted in his service record.
The penalties are to be recovered from the salaries of the two officials, with the commission directing the Divisional Railway Manager, Salem division, to ensure compliance with the order.
