- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vivek Mittal Petitioner v. B.P Srivastava & Ors
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petition was filed by Mr. Vivek Mittal challenging the order dated 28th November, 2006 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner. The impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,250/- on the petitioner for delay in supplying information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Chief Information Commissioner had expressed displeasure regarding the appointment of two class-IV officials as Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs), which was considered improper. The petitioner, who was working as an Administrative Officer (IT) and not designated as a CPIO, was penalized despite not being responsible for the delay. The Court took up the writ petition for hearing and final disposal in the absence of the respondent No. 1.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the penalty imposed by the Chief Information Commissioner on the petitioner, who was not designated or appointed as a CPIO, for delay in supplying information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, was justified.
- Whether a CPIO can delegate responsibility to class-IV employees and escape liability for delay or failure in furnishing information.
- The procedural propriety of imposing penalty without issuing prior notice or opportunity to the petitioner.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3's Arguments
- The Administrative Officer (Central Zone) was the Nodal Officer and the CPIO at the project building, Lajpat Nagar.
- The two class-IV employees were assigned to collect documents and assist the CPIO/Administrative Officer (Central Zone), not act as CPIOs themselves.
Petitioner's Position (Inferred from Court's Analysis)
- The petitioner was working as an Administrative Officer (IT) and was not designated or appointed as a CPIO.
- The petitioner conducted an inquiry as directed and was not responsible for the delay in furnishing information.
- No notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner before imposing penalty.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted the Chief Information Commissioner's correct observation that appointing class-IV employees such as a peon and chowkidar as CPIOs was improper under Section 5(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It emphasized that the obligation and responsibility to supply information rest squarely on the designated CPIOs and they cannot evade this duty by blaming subordinate staff. While the Chief Information Commissioner could have examined and imposed penalty on the correct CPIO, the impugned order wrongly imposed penalty on the petitioner, who was not the CPIO and had no responsibility for the delay. The Court further highlighted the procedural lapse of imposing penalty without giving the petitioner notice or an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty order against the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the Central Information Commission for reexamination and issuance of notice to the correct CPIO, with directions to impose penalty if warranted under the law.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
The Court remanded the matter to the Central Information Commission for reexamination and proper proceedings against the designated CPIO, if necessary. The Rs. 5,250/- deposited by the petitioner will be refunded. The decision directly affects the parties by correcting the procedural and substantive error in penalty imposition but does not establish any new precedent.
ORDER
1. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 1, who had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act for short), in spite of service. The writ petition is accordingly taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by Mr. Vivek Mittal for setting aside order dated 28th November, 2006 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 5,250/- for delay in supplying information to respondent No. 1.
3. The impugned order reveals that the learned Chief Information Commissioner had rightly expressed displeasure at the note dated 13 January, 2006 of Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone appointing two class-IV officials as CPIO under Section 5(5) of the Act. The learned Chief Information Commissioner was justified in observing a peon and a chowkidar, who were at best messengers, cannot be appointed as CPIOs.
4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit have submitted that the Administrative Officer (Central Zone) was the Nodal Officer at the project building, Lajpat Nagar and the CPIO. The two class IV employees mentioned in the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner were entrusted with the work to collect documents from the concerned officers and handover the same to the CPIO/Administrative Officer (Central Zone). Thus, the two class-IV officials were working under and assisting the CPIO i.e the Administrative Officer (Central Zone).
5. There is merit in the finding of learned Chief Information Commissioner that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow.
6. The Chief Information Commissioner could have proceeded and examined whether penalty should be imposed on the CPIO i.e the Administrative Officer (Central Zone). However, by the impugned order, penalty has been imposed on the petitioner, who was working as an Administrative Officer (IT). The impugned order imposing penalty on the petitioner, who was never designated, appointed or worked as a CPIO, cannot be sustained. The petitioner had conducted an inquiry as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner (Central Zone). He was not responsible for the delay in furnishing the information sought by the respondent No. 1. The impugned order, therefore, is based upon a wrong assumption that the petitioner was the CPIO, who was responsible for the delay in furnishing the information. It may also be noted that no opportunity or notice was issued to the petitioner before penalty was imposed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26 November, 2006 imposing penalty of Rs. 5,250/- on the petitioner on the ground that he was the CPIO, who had committed the fault, is set aside.
7. The matter is remanded back to the Central Information Commission for reexamination. Central Information Commissioner will issue notice to the concerned CPIO and if required, impose penalty in accordance with law.
8. The respondent MCD will appear before the Central Information Commission on 23rd September, 2009, when further date will be fixed. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion whether or not penalty should be imposed. It is also clarified that in case the petitioner is found to be responsible for the delay or violating any of the provisions of the Act, the Central Information Commission will be competent to pass an appropriate order. Rs. 5,250/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court will be released to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of. Dasti to the counsel for the parties.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 24, 2009 NA
Alert