RTI Judgement Series: Register police complaint if file is lost or stolen
Moneylife Digital Team 15 April 2013

When the PIO claimed that the file relating to the pension case of the applicant was not available, the CIC asked him to register a police complaint for the theft or loss of the file. This is the 73rd in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the Pension Cell of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to file a police complaint about a file that he claimed was lost or stolen. The CIC also issued a show-cause notice to other two PIOs who failed to provide the information within 30 days.

 

While giving this important judgement on 24 September 2009, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “The APIO Prem Raj is directed to send a copy of the police complaint and the certificate from the Chief Accountant and Financial Advisor to the appellant and the Commission before 5 October 2009. The PIO at Shahdara South zone is directed to send the information to the appellant before 5 October 2009.”

 

Dehradun (Uttarakhand) resident ML Guglani, on 30 February 2009, sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the PIO of the Pension Cell (HQ) in the MCD. He sought information regarding a hospital building in Rohini zone. Here is the information he sought...

 

1. Names of the concerned officers in the Health Office and pension office who were under obligation of taking and instigating action according to the Pension rule in a time bound manner starting two years before retirement.

2. Date wise summary of action for payment of retirement dues two years before retirement

3. Photocopies of notes recorded in files of Health & Accounts & Pension department & also the name/s of the officers of the Department and also pension & accounts section who were responsible for not assessing and paying interest suo moto at GPF ... for late payment of retirement benefits ad per provisions of Rule 68 of Pension rules.

4. Date of appointment of the appellant.

5. Designation of appellant from time to time with grade and basic pay of the appellant 31/12/1972, 01/01/1973, 31/12/1985, 01/01/1986, 31/12/1995 & 01/01/1996.

6. Amount of retirement gratuity paid with dates.

7. Amount of basic pension fixed with dates after 01/04/1996 onwards and arrears of pension, pension commutation & gratuity paid with dates.

8. Amount of first Pension paid with dates.

9. Amount and rate of commutation fixed on different dates.

10. Amount of arrears of pension paid with date.

11. Amount paid towards arrears of pay after 5th CPC.

12. Proof of payment of bonus for 1995-96 paid/payable during 1996-97.

13. Certified copy of service book permissible to retired employee on the fee prescribed of Rs5 under supplementary rule 198.

14. Amount and date of payment of GPF paid (interest & and principle) and the date up to which the interest was applied on the GPF accumulations.

 

The PIO, in his reply stated that “It is informed that file of PPO no. 17422G is not traceable.  As and when the file is traced out, the information pertaining to Pension Cell (HQ) shall be given.”

 

Guglani then filed his first appeal before the First Appellate Authority. He said, “The application has been rejected without passing speaking order and PIO has little discretion or powers to deny information except under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”

 

However, the FAA did not pass any order. Guglani then approached the CIC with his second appeal.

 

During the hearing, the PIO stated that the application under the RTI Act was filed with the PIO of Health Department at Shahdara South Zone where the appellant (Guglani) had worked. He stated that the information on points 1-4 and 10-12 would be available with the PIO of Health department and accounts department of Shahdra Zone.

 

However, despite this they (the PIOs) did not provide the information and sent the application to the PIO, DCFM, the Commission noted.

 

During the hearing the APIO also claimed that a file relating to the pension case of Mr Guglani was not available. On this, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, pointed out to the APIO that the file might have been stolen.

 

He then directed the APIO to file a police complaint about the theft or loss of the file and obtain a certificate from the chief accountant and financial advisor that the file was stolen or lost.

 

While allowing the appeal, the CIC directed the APIO to send a photocopy of the GPF ledger as well as the PPO register to the appellant (Guglani) before 5 October 2009.

 

The Commission also directed PIO of Shahdara South Zone to provide the information on points 1-4 and 10-12 to the appellant and to send a copy of the personal file of the appellant before 5 October 2009.

 

Mr Gandhi also noted that the PIO of the Health Department, Shahdara South zone and the DCA, Shahdara, South zone were guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI Act, by not providing the complete information within 30 days. The CIC then issues a show-cause notice to the PIOs and asked them to submit their reasons on why penalty should not be levied on them.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001773/4818

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/SG-16092009-02.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001773

 

Appellant                                            : ML Guglani

                                                            Dehradun, Uttrakhand.

 

Respondent                                        : The Dy. Chief Accountant/F/FMB & PIO

                                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi

                                                            Office of the CA-cum-FA

                                                            Pension Cell (HQ), Town Hall

                                                            Katcha Bagh, Delhi-110006.

Comments
Advait Bapat
4 years ago
Sir/Madam,
The link u shared above is not correct. The proper link for this decision is as below,
http://ciconline.nic.in//rti/docs/cic_decisions/SG-16092009-02.pdf
Also, please note that in the narration u mentioned that the order was passed on 24 September 2009 whereas actually order was passed on 16 September 2009. Please make changes accordingly in the narration. Please do the needful.
Thanks & Regards.
Advait Bapat
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback