RTI Corner

The appellant filed an application seeking information about the ODI list such as number of officers whose cases have been exonerated and date of review meeting of the ODI status of officers etc. The information was denied from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the disclosure of any kind of information would therefore defeat the very purpose of surveillance which is conducted through the established procedure of ODI list.
Comments
The ‘list of Public Servants of Gazetted status of Doubtful Integrity’ includes the names of those officers only who, after enquiry or during the course of enquiry, have been found to be lacking in integrity, (i) Convicted in a court of law on a charge of lack of integrity or for an offence involving moral turpitude but on whom, in view of exceptional circumstances, a penalty other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is imposed; (ii) Awarded departmentally a major penalty. a) on charges of lack of integrity b) on charges of gross dereliction of duty in protecting the interests of Government although the corrupt motive may not be capable of proof; (iii) Against whom proceedings for a major penalty or a court trial are in progress for alleged acts involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude; and (iv) Who were prosecuted but acquitted on technical grounds, and in whose case on the basis of evidence during the trial there remained a reasonable suspicion against their integrity. In case of S R Senapati v. Directorate General of Income Tax (Vig.) in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DGITV/A/2017/160016-BJ dated 16.10.2018, the CIC had directed to disclose the information applying severability.
Citation: A K Banerjee v. Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara Zone in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCEVD/A/2018/174752, / Date of order: 01.09.2020.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

During the hearing by video conference, the manner in which the PIO was making her presentations was not at all acceptable and it appeared that she was running the hearing. Despite repeated requests she failed to maintain the decorum of the CIC and continued to speak without listening to the questions raised by the CIC. The Commission was, therefore, constrained to disconnect the audio-conferencing and she was asked to file her written submissions to decide the case. The Commission noted that complete information was provided to the appellant and the appellant is also satisfied with the same. However, the appellant requested the Commission to instruct the concerned PIO to supply the information within the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act. The CIC cautioned the PIO to remain careful while handling the RTI applications in future and to ensure that timely replies are provided to every RTI application handled by her. The CIC also observed that it is necessary to maintain decorum at all times during the hearing and even when the contention is justified, it must be in a language of utmost restraint, always keeping in view that the person making the comment is also fallible.
Comments
It is the duty of the PIO to behave cordially with the applicant and maintain good behaviour. The PIO should be humble and polite when addressing a Judicial or Quasi-Judicial body.
Citation: Dr S Garg v. University Grants Commission in File No.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/639673, Date of Decision: 09/09/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Among other submissions, the appellant informed the CIC that the FAA did not provide him an opportunity of being heard even though he had requested for the same in his first appeal memo. The CIC observed that deciding an appeal after rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and is in line with the principles of natural justice. As per Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, the FAA is required to dispose of an appeal within 30 days of the receipt thereof and as far as possible also give the appellant as well as third party an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of the RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant.
Comments
Although the RTI Act or the rules made thereunder do not prescribe the procedure to be followed by the FAA in dealing with first appeals, the FAA should give an opportunity of hearing to any Appellant if the Appellant expressly wants to be heard. In the case of Manohar v. State of Maharashtra [CA No. 9095/2012], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded.
Citation: Dr S Garg v. University Grants Commission in File No.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/639673, Date of Decision: 09/09/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com