RTI Corner

Certain information relating to the representation of the appellant was denied claiming that it was not traceable in their record. The appellant claimed that his letter dated 14.10.2013 was sent by Speed Post vide tracking no. ED 888476332 IN and also delivered personally to the office of the CMD of Bank. The Commission observed that record keeping and proper maintenance of files is a key function of any public authority. Hence, it is imperative to ascertain the facts leading to the misplacement of the representation submitted by the appellant. The Commission directed the First Appellate Authority of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, Gurgaon to inquire into the matter of the ‘missing’ representation and to ascertain as to whether the representation was actually misplaced or the PIO had taken that plea to deny information to the appellant. The FAA was directed to take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for the misplacement of the representation, if required. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report to be provided to the Information Commission as well as to the appellant within a period of six weeks.
Comments
All organisations should take a note of the fact that in case of ‘missing’ records, the Information Commission has started taking strict action for not taking due care of the records.
Citation: Dinesh Bhagat v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, RTI Cell in Decision No. CIC/OBKOC/A/2017/179224 Dated 28.03.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought information regarding the assets disclosed by officers and staff in a certain Income Tax office, copy of the proactive disclosure made under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act in Telugu Language and The IT Act in Tamil language. The PIO informed that the Act had not been printed in Telugu Language. The CIC ruled that the information with respect to the assets and liabilities of an employee qualifies as personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Commission advised the Respondent to consider publishing the aforesaid information in Telugu Language for the benefit of the Public at large.
Comments
Many judicial fora have ruled that the information with respect to the assets and liabilities of an employee, which he discloses to his employer in compliance of the Service Rules applicable to him qualifies as personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and such information cannot be directed to be disclosed unless the PIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information.
Citation: Mr. Ravuri Ramesh Babu v. Income Tax in Appeal No.:- CIC/DITIN/A/2017/104537-BJ, Date of Decision: 16.03.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The applicant sought information about status of his PF claim, specifically about the action taken on his representation. Because of lack of response, the applicant approached the Commission which issued a show cause notice for imposing penalty. The PIO agreed to the fact that the file of the appellant was not traceable. The CIC noted that the respondent authority had not given any response within the stipulated 30 days’ time from the date of receipt of this RTI application. Information was provided only after CIC’s direction. The CIC observed that this is illegal and blatant denial of information on the lame excuse that the records could not be traced. The CIC further observed that for an ordinary workman like the applicant, the PF amount is like a security, non-settlement of PF payment issues will seriously affect the maintenance of family of the PF holder. It indicates the failure of governance on the part of the public authority. The maximum penalty of Rs 25,000/- was imposed on the PIO.
Comments
The PIO should respond to the RTI Applicant in every case within the prescribed time period. The absence of records cannot be taken as a ground for denial of information.
Citation: Kiran Kumari v. PIO, EPFO, Meerut in CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/130175, Date of Decision - 16.03.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/