Yashovardhan Azad, IC:—
CIC/YA/A/2015/002866
CIC/YA/A/2015/002892
1. To decide the controversy involved in the present appeal, it would be profitable to narrate the undisputed factual backdrop. The appellant is the proprietor of M/s Deep Ganga Clinic-Urology Centre, Allahabad. In 2008, he had applied to the respondent CGHS for empanelment of his clinic and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000/- by DD No. 828869 dated 21.07.2008 drawn on Federal Bank, Allahabad. However, the aforesaid application was turned down and the respondents became liable for refund of earnest money.
2. On 17.06.2009, the respondents issued an order according sanction of the competent authority for refund of earnest money of the applicants. The name of the appellant's clinic finds mention at serial no 7 alongwith the details of Demand Draft No. of the earnest mney deposit made by the appellant. A corresponding refund amount of Rs. 50,000 also finds mention therein. However, the amount so referred was not refunded to the appellant which constrained him to seek action taken report on the order dated 17.06.2009 through RTI application dated 18.07.2015.
3. The CPIO replied on 14.09.2015 and surprisingly, the CPIO denied the fact of having received the draft no. 828869 for Rs. 1,00,000/-|as earnest money deposit. Feeling aggrieved over supply of wrong information, the appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained unheard. Faced with the aforesaid, the appellant approached the Commission.
4. Both the parties are present and heard at length. At the outset, the respondent CPIO, Shri Mohan Lal concedes that factually incorrect information was furnished to the appellant inadvertence and regrets the same. A brief submission highlighting the timeline of event is placed before the Commission. Relevant portion is reproduced hereinafter:
I am directed to refer your letter No. CIC/YA/A/2015/002892 dated 07.12.2016 received from Nodal Offcier, RTI CGHS(Hq) Delhi on 22.12.2016 on the subject noted above. The chronological sequence of events is as follows.
17.06.2009: Order for refunds of EMD received from Addl. DDG(Hq) in respect of 7(Seven) Hospitals of Allahabad, the 7th being Deep Ganga Clinic. As per refund order due to rejection of empanelment only Rs. 50,000/- was to be refunded to Deep Ganga Clinic, Allahabad. 05.05.2010: The EMD of remaining six hospitals were refunded. But the 7th EMD against Deep Ganga Clinic was not refunded as there was no entry of Deep Ganga Clinic in the Security Deposit Register records. Same was intimated to ADDG (Hq.), Nirman Vihar and AD/JD CGHS, Allahabad. 14.09.2015: RTI dated 13.07.2015 was received on 09.09.2015 to provide information about the above matter which was replied on 14.09.2015. We have informed that no such matching DD was received in our office favouring Deep Ganga Clinic, Allahabad. 29.09.2015: Ist appeal dated 29.09.2015 was received on 02.11.2015 and reply was given on 01.12.2015 in the same lines as above. 05.03.2016: A letter sent to PAO/Manager Bank of Baroda by Addl. DDG (Hq) enquiring deposit of Demand Draft. 28.07.2016: Reply received from Bank of Baroda that revalidate DD No. 828869 was deposited and credited in Govt. Account on 23.04.2009.
Based on this information we scrutinized our records and found that the DD No. 828869 was inadvertently deposited in favour of Yashlok Hospital & Research Centre Allahabad vide Challan No. 2 dated 15.04.2009. Same was intimated to ADDL. DDG(Hq)/AD CGHS, Allahabad.
29.10.2016: Addl. DDG(Hq) CGHS has sent e-mail stating that the matter has been sent to IFD (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare) for approval of regarding the EMD refund to Deep Ganga Clinic.
02.01.2017: We checked the list received by CGHS, Gr. Cell dated 23.03.2009 and found that revalidated demand draft no. 828869 was received in favour of Deep Ganga Clinic, but was inadvertently deposited in name of Yeshlok Hospital & Research Centre Allahabad.
As soon as the refund order is received from Addl. DDG (Hq), we will refund the earnest money deposit to Deep Ganga Clinic Allahabad.
AO, CGHS
5. Thus, in wake of the foregoing discussion it emerges that the despite the order of competent authority in 2009 no refund of earnest money deposit was issued to the credit of appellant. The refund is due since 2009 and the respondent public authority is yet to act & discharge their liability. The CPIO assures the Commission that the amount due on account of earnest money would be refunded expeditiously.
6. Another contention raised by the appellant is that only half of the earnest money deposit is stipulated for refund and another half is being unlawfully usurped by the respondent authority. It is specifically pointed out by the appellant that all the successfully empanelled applicants were refunded full earnest money deposit whereas he being the sole unsuccessful applicant is set to receive only half the earnest money deposit. Per contra, the CPIO states that it the policy of the department to deduct 50% of the unsuccessful applicants for empanelment under CGHS. The Commission is not the forum to review governmental policies and but one wonders the rationale behind such a policy which ex-facieseems to be arbitrary and untenable. The Commission recommends the Director General, DGHS to take due cognizance of the situation.
7. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that factually incorrect information was furnished to the appellant. Though, no malafide is attributable to anyone involved but the appellant has been at the receiving end for the past around 8 years. Accordingly, the Commission in exercise of powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 proposes to award compensation to the appellant for having suffered proven detriment due to furnishing of factually wrong information. The respondent public authority is hereby required to show cause as to why a compensation of Rupees 1,00,000/- may not be awarded to the appellant for having suffered detriment & mental agony due to furnishing of wrong information. Written submission in this regard, if any, shall reach the Commission by 28.02.2017.
8. In the meanwhile, the CPIO is directed to furnish a revised reply to the appellant afresh to the RTI application dated 13.07.2015 within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
9. Further proceedings shall be notified in due course.
Y.K. Sinha, CIC:—
Final Decision: 03.03.2021
I. On perusal of the records of the case, it is noted that due to a technical lapse, the pendency of the instant matter did not come to the notice of the of this Bench, particularly after the Information Commissioner who had passed the order dated 03.02.2017 and the Information Commissioner who subsequently handled this particular matter, have demitted office. The matter has now come to the notice of this Bench and therefore the final adjudication of the matter is being undertaken.
II. Pursuant to the above decision dated 03.02.2017 of the Commission, records of the case reveal that vide a reply dated 16.03.2017, and the Respondent-CPIO/Accounts Officer-Sh. H.S. Gupta has clarified the following position:
“1. That EMD of the appellant was received from CGHS desk-II vide their letter No. S. 11011/62/2006-CGHS Dest-II (pt), dated 23.03.2009 & the appellant Hospital is at S. No. 7 (Please see annexure A).
2. In year 2009, One hundred Forty three (143) Demand Drafts of various Hospital & Diagnostic Centres were received from CGHS Division, MOHFW for depositing in treasury. The Demand Drafts of Appellant's Deep Ganga Clinic & of One Yashlok Hospital Allahabad were also received but both the Draft were entered in treasury challan mentioning Yashlok Hospital by the then Grievance Cell duly signed by Joint Director (Grievance Cell) & the then Accounts Officer, CGHS Delhi. Since the treasury challan were prepared on computer it seems that while submitting the Draft of appellant the details of hospital mentioning Yashlok Hospital were got changed erroneously. The copies of Treasury Challan are annexed as annexure at B-1 & B-2).
3. The Demand Drafts for empanelment were being received in CGHS(HQ) Delhi for depositing in the treasury ever since the process of empanelment of Private Hospital & Diagnostic Centres was initiated in year 1992 & thereafter from time to time & is still continuing. The above bonafide error is a solitary error which may kindly be condoned and compensation of Rupees one lakh may not be awarded to the appellant.
4. The Demand Draft of No. 133984 dated 01.03.2017 for Rupees Fifty Thousand toward earnest money deposit (EMD) has already been paid to the appellant through Additional Director, CGHS Allahabad under intimation to him (Please see annexure C).
5. It is for your goodself information that the then Joint Director (Grievance Cell) & the then Accounts Officer, CGHS Delhi have superannuated.
6. In order to avoid recurrence of such error resulting inconvenience to applicant/appellant applying for empanelment of three tier check mechanism has been worked out. Monthly review of Deposit of Demand Draft and refund of the same on receipt of the refund order will be strictly enforced.
7. In compliance of the direction in para 8 of the above decision a revise reply to the appellant in respect of his RTI application 13.07.2015 is being sent concurrently.”
(Reproduced verbatim)
III. It has also been noted that the Respondent has complied with directions of the Commission as specified in the paragraph 8 of the above order dated 03.02.2017 and a revised reply has been duly provided to the Appellant.
IV. The Appellant has vide application dated 25.07.2017 acknowledged receipt of the sum of Rs. 50,000/- vide DD dated 01.03.2017. Vide a subsequent application dated 01.05.2018, the Appellant has also admitted the receipt of the revised reply dated 16.03.2017 from the Respondent.
V. The Respondent has in its submissions admitted that there has been a bonafide error and has pleaded for condonation thereof as a solitary mistake. A demand draft dated 01.03.2017 for Rupees Fifty Thousand only towards the Earnest Money Deposit has been paid to the Appellant and proof thereof has been submitted by the Respondent. Submissions of the Respondent further reveal that the then Joint Director, Grievance Cell and the then Accounts Officer, CGHS due to whose lapse this entire mistake had occurred have superannuated. The respondent has further stated that in order to avoid recurrence of such error a three tier check mechanism has been worked out.
VI. Perusal of records of the case, the Commission observes that though there has been a delay in furnishing of information, the Respondent has admitted the lapse and even taken necessary steps to not only rectify the error on their part qua the Appellant, but also devised a better system to avoid any future recurrence of a mistake. The Commission is convinced that the mistake was not borne out of any malafide on the part of the Respondent. Moreover, the concerned officers have superannuated in any case, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in prolonging this adjudication.
10. The Commission places reliance on the decision of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission. [WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009], it was held as under:
“Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.”
11. In the light of the foregoing facts, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no direction for payment of compensation is required in this case, considering the absence of any malafide in the conduct of the Respondent, as has been discussed in the above cited decision of the Hon'ble Court.
12. The instant appeal is disposed off accordingly.