Re: [HumJanenge] DISCLOSING LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED BY CIC

Dear Sarabjit Roy, Case No. CIC/AD/C/2010/000144.   The case belongs to News Services Division of All India Radio. Shri G. Subramanian, Dy. Registrar and CPIO is on deputation to CIC from the NSD, AIR.   During the hearing on 17th January, 11, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit Information Commissioner remarked that she will take legal opinion from the Jt. Secretary (Legal) of CIC.  The PIO has not also admitted of seeking legal advice while stating, "It is stated that the advice has been given in a fiduciary capacity and the information is denied under section 18I1) (e) and Section 8(1)(j)"……….   "the Commission can seek assistance for arriving at a decision."   Shri D.K. Das, CPIO retired on 31st December, 10 and I filed non-compliance report 4th Oct. on the previous decision taken on 27th August in this case.  There were about two months to hear the case by the IC before the retirement of PIO. I brought the fact of the retirement to the knowledge and requested her to hear my case before the retirement of PIO vide my letter dated 30.10.10 sent by speed post and also sent some email also to IC/Dy. Registrar requesting for early hearing.   The case was heard four times in toto and the PIO has not given compliance of past decisions, therefore fresh hearing was made on the non-compliance report submitted by me.  Therefore, the PIO was given more than reasonable opportunities.   I am reproducing the para 8 and 9 of the decision dated 8.2.2011 of hearing dated 17.1.11.   "8. Careful examination of the facts at hand coupled with the contentions of the parties in this case indicate that some vital issues which arose in this case need to be addressed and duly adjudicated upon. First of all, the submissions of the Respondent with respect to the FIR filed are found self contradictory and it is not clear as to whether the Public Authority refers to the letter dated 21.09.2010 as the FIR or relies on the copy of FIR dated 25.11.2010 (mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the CPIO's submission dated 17.01.2011 as 05.11.2010). Secondly, it is also not clear as to why in the letter (purported to be the FIR) dated 21.09.2010, the CPIO has sought information about records pertaining to the period of 2002 whereas the entire dispute pertains to missing information pertaining to the period of 2007 (the period when admittedly the shifting took place). Thirdly, it is also noted that extraneous matters have been included in the affidavit which have no bearing or relevance to the directions as given by the Commission. Furthermore, it is also noted that no Show cause notice has so far been issued to the officers responsible for the lapse and delay in action, who had not retired by the dead line even though some had only been transferred. It is even more surprising to note that the CPIO, Sh. D K Das, in employment at the relevant point of time, did not even bother to respond to the Show Cause issued by the Commission by order dated 27.08.2010. In the written submissions, the Appellant has also drawn the attention of the Commission to the fact that despite clear directions from the Commission in the paragraph 7 of the order dated 27.08.2010 to submit the FIR by 30th September 2010, the FIR was lodged only on 25.11.2010. The FIR dated 25.11.2010 also reveals that the date of occurrence of the cause of action was 22.09.2010 whereas the submissions about non traceability of the file have been made from a much earlier date. The submissions of the CPIO in the affidavit dated 27.09.2010 are therefore found to be in glaringly contradictory to the earlier submissions. Such acts/omissions result in defeating the very purpose of swearing on Affidavit because the sanctity of an Affidavit lies in the truth and correctness of the words therein.   9. However, the Commission in the light of the foregoing facts and submissions of the case, directs the CPIO to submit a fresh affidavit giving the exact and correct information as already directed by the Commission by the earlier order dated 27.08.2010. The Commission further directs that a fresh and appropriate FIR to be filed again for the loss of files/documents containing the relevant information pertaining to the period post 2007 as sought by the Appellant. Moreover, considering the fact that the CPIO's acts/omissions were negligent enough to have caused delay and deprivation of the fundamental right to information to the Appellant, the Commission directs the CPIO to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/as Compensation for the detriment/mental harassment suffered by the Appellant. In view of the fact that the concerned officer/s of the Public Authority have already retired, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the concerned retired officers under the RTI Act and also since no penalty proceedings can be initiated and case does not merit invocation of Rule 8 or Rule 9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, the undersigned directs the Appellate Authority with the powers vested in her under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act to enquire into this matter and in the absence of the retired CPIO to give strict warnings to all the staff, who are found even indirectly connected with this case about the need for ensuring strict compliance with the Commission's orders, under intimation to the Appellant. All information to be provided by 20.3.2011 as also the compensation directed by the Commission."   10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy: (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar