PENALTIES OF DESIGNATED OFFICERS UNDER RTI

WHY RTI IS A SUCCESS

In almost times if any officer avoids their responsibilities, the ordinary person suffers from his/ her problems but RTI is the act where the officers cannot get the chance to avoid their responsibilities and if the concerned officer does not provide the information or any response in time, the CIC will impose a penalty on the PIO; that’s why RTI is a success.

CONDITIONS

There are some conditions for the penalty -

Rejection of an application for no reason.

Not providing the requested information within 30 days from receiving the application.

Maliciously denied the request for information.

Giving incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.

Destroying the required information of the applicant.

Making obstruction in any manner, in furnishing the information.

PENALTIES

The penalty will be Rs. 250 per day until they furnish the information or applicants receive the application within the time limits. Such penalty shall not exceed 25000. The PIO must pay his penalty from his/ her salary.

The CIC/ SIC will give the PIO a reasonable opportunity before he/she imposes a penalty.

PENALTY CASES

PENALTY CASE RELEVANT TO EPF

The CIC of New Delhi had imposed a penalty of Rs. 75000/- on the CPIO & Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Mukesh Kumar based on three cases for the pension fund of three employees filed by Parveen Kohli, the General Manager of Haryana Tourism Corporation (HTC) of Chandigarh. The CPIO refused to disclose, depositing requisite fees. To know his required information Mr. Kohli had sought all the relevant documents but the CPIO, Mukesh Kumar humiliated the applicant in his office premises. Then Mr. Kohli made complaints against the officer and the CIC ordered to impose a penalty of Rs. 75000/- against the CPIO.

PENALTY CASE RELEVANT TO EPF & ESIC

It is a case of Nashik in Maharashtra where the applicant filed a second appeal to the Central Information Commissioner, Prof. Dr. Sridhar Acharyulu for not providing complete information on the EPF account and delaying it over 15 months.

Nagraj Janardhan Patil filed An RTI in 2016 to seek copies of documents that relate to the PF account of 1988-89 of Chetan Patil. Janardhan Patil did not get any information from the CPIO and appellate authority and the CIC also had received many second appeals which relate to EPF and the complaint was the private employers were not depositing the same amount of money along with the contribution of employees as the law of PF states that the employee must deposit 12% of his salary and the employer contributes the equal of the employee’s payment.

The Provident Fund officers have all the powers to act against the employers’ illegal activities and RTI is the instrument to seek information about PF officers’ actions from PF authorities. But the CPIO of the PF public authority exempted the application from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) which states that the disclosure of the information which relates to the personal information has not been permitted as it does not relate to any public activity or interest. But according to Dr. Acharyulu, the wage board fixed the wage of the PF and 12% was fixed as PF contribution. 12% was the fixed amount now which was changed into 10%. So, citizens may seek their relevant information to clear their confusion and ensure the PF officer’s activities. The PF account is not like a personal bank account. So, it does not belong to personal information or any third party information.

Finally, the CIC ordered the CPIO to disclose the complete information and sought copies of the document. The documents were proof of deduction from Chetan Patil’s salary and the employer’s share. The CIC also imposed a penalty to the former CPIO, Jagdish Tambe of Rs. 25000/- because he filed the case when Mr. Tambe was designated as the CPIO. But at the time of the second appeal, A.C. Pagariya was designated as the CPIO and Mr. Pagariya defended himself from getting a penalty saying it. This case is one misuse of section-8 under the RTI Act from the officers’ side.