Dated 21-04-2007

Name of the Complainant:
Shri Pulin Sarmah,
Junior Account Assistant
Treasury Office, Sivasagar, Assam

Name of the Public Authority:
D.C. Sivasagar

The following were present:
Shri K.K. Dwivedi DC, Sivasagar
Shri P.N. Kaman Treasury Officer, Sivasagar - Public Authorities
Shri Pulin Sarmah - Complainant

Brief of the case

The Commission in its hearing an 16.3.2007 found that there was a failure on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar and the Treasury Officer, Sivasagar to furnish required information to the petitioner within the stipulated date. Accordingly the Commission directed them to file affidavit detailing the points they wanted to submit before the Commission. The petitioner was also directed to submit an affidavit.

Submission of the Parties and the Commission's comments

The Deputy Commissioner and the Treasury Officer, Sivasagar accordingly submitted the affidavits. The petitioner, Shri Pulin Sarma also submitted his affidavit. In addition to their submissions through the affidavits all of them made oral submissions which were more or less in line with the submissions made in the affidavit. The Deputy Commissioner admitted that he was misled by the SPIO in his office who had never informed him that the required information had not been furnished to the petitioner. Nevertheless it was very clear that he failed to discharge his duties as the 1 st Appellate Authority under section 19 (6) of the RTI Act. The Commission also found that he failed to comply with requirement of section 5(5) of the RTI Act. On both these counts he had no satisfactory explanation though he tried to convince the Commission that it was the fault of the SPIO who had misguided him. The Treasury Officer in his affidavit had mentioned that the information was not given as it was exempted under section 8 (h) (j) of the RTI Act. On being pointed out that these exemptions were not applicable in this particular case he admitted that he was wrong in interpreting these provisions. He also mentioned that he could not attend to this work because of his personal tragedy as during that period he lost his sister.

Both the Deputy Commissioner and the Treasury Officer expressed their regret in having failed to appreciate the provisions of the RTI Act and they repeatedly sought forgiveness for the omission which was not intentional.

The petitioner is his affidavit reiterated the submission he made on 16.3.2007 before the Commission. He also orally submitted that he had received all the information after the last hearing and also that he was denied the promotion wrongly as there was no punishment given to him by any authority.

Findings of the Commission

The Commission found that both the Deputy Commissioner and the Treasury Officer, Sivasagar failed to provide information to the petitioner on time. They admitted that it was not deliberate or nor had they any intention of denying information to the petitioner. The Commission noted that both of them had misread the provisions of the Act and treated the RTI petitions in the routine manner like any other petitions of the public. They had been advised to treat the petitions received under the RTI Act from the public on a different priority and to furnish the information to the petitioners within the stipulated period. The petitioner was asked whether he pressed for imposing penalty on the Deputy Commissioner and the Treasury Officer, Sivasagar. He was very clear that he did not want to press for the same as he had already got the complete information.

The Commission noted that the petitioner had been denied his promotion by the departmental proceeding held on 2.8.2004 under the Chairmanship of the then Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar on the ground that he had been awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments. Contrary to that he was informed by the Treasury Officer vide Memo No. SIV/TRY/2006/2007/40/1483 dated 22 nd March 2007 that his increment were not stopped as a measure of punishment but due to seizure of the papers by the CID and pendency of the case in the court. These two were very contradictory and the Commission found that the petitioner had not been awarded any punishment on the basis of the enquiry, because the enquiry itself was still incomplete on account of the seizure of the records by the CID. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar vide No. SVPP.22/2001/27 dated 2 nd March 2002 was also silent on the punishment as it was only an adhoc order reinstating the petitioner in service. The Selection Board proceeding dated 2.8.2004 therefore, could not be accepted as based on facts.

Order of the Commission

Keeping in view of the submission of the parties and also the peculiar circumstances involving the Treasury Office, Sivasagar in which a great deal of fraudulent drawal of money from the Treasury had taken place, the Commission found the failure of the Public Authorities to furnish the information was on account of the deficiency in the system rather than the intention to deny information. Both the Deputy Commissioner and the Treasury Officer, Sivasagar had expressed their regrets for failure to furnish information and wanted to be excused as it happened on account of their misunderstanding of the Act. The petitioner also did not press for imposing of penalties on the Public Authorities.

Under the circumstances the Commission came to the conclusion that imposing penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act on these Public Authorities would be too harsh a measure. As they expressed, regrets and also assured the Commission that in future such lapses would not happen, the Commission was inclined to give them an opportunity to improve their functioning in implementation of Right to Information Act without being too severe on them.

The earlier decision to impose penalty on them was taken by the full Commission consisting of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioner. In the present hearing the State Information Commissioner could not be present and the respondents were told that the final decision on this hearing would be taken after consultation with the State Information Commissioner. Therefore consultations had been held with the State Information Commissioner on 23 rd April 2007 being the next working day.

The State Information Commissioner on going through the relevant papers and after a detailed discussion with the State Chief Information Commissioner was also of the view that the proposed penalty on the two Public Authorities would be too harsh and, therefore, the Commission, let them off with the warning that such lapses should not happen in future again.

The Commission also required the Deputy ,Commissioner, Sivasagar under section 19(8) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 to take corrective steps in the matter of denial of promotion to the petitioner and report compliance to the Commission within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Sd/- (R.S. Mooshahary)
Chief Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

Sd/-(Dr. B.K. Gohain)
State Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.


Authenticated true copy

(Jiauddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

CC:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar,
2. The Treasury Officer, Sivasagar.
3. Shri Pulin Sarmah, Junior Account Assistant, Treasury Office, Sivasagar, Assam.
4. MD, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan
5. Office file.


Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam