central information commission notice/rti/p.k._pandey_v._maulana_azad... · ophthalmology that...
TRANSCRIPT
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-SA CIC/DS/A/2013/001741-SA CIC/DS/A/2013/002561-SA
Appellant : P.K.Pandey Respondent : 1. Maulana Azad Medical College
2.Health & Family Welfare Dept., GNCTD Date of hearing : 13.8.2014, 2.09.2014 & 8.09.2014 Date of decision : 1.10.2014 Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Referred Sections : Section 3, 19(3) of the RTI Act Result : Appeal allowed / Disposed of Observation: Admonition and Condemnation of a highly educated doctor for his abuse of RTI. Summary of the decision: The appellant Dr PK Pandey in this case being a very highly educated doctor/professor, behaved in a most unreasonable manner, not showing any inclination to listen to reason, finding happiness in agonizing senior/colleague teachers/doctors who submitted their sufferings and harassment he has been inflicting on them since years without any legitimate goal or purpose. The Commission considers this case as the repetitive misuse of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act. The Commission finds him to be a cantankerous litigant and continuous trouble maker for the office and colleagues.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 2
The Commission observes that all three victims of his repeated nuisance applications have every right to pursue for their remedies under both civil and criminal law. They complained that the RTI in his hands got converted into a tool of oppression and intimidation of honest doctors. As per the Madras HC in P. Jayasankar Vs Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and Gunaseelan, I.P.S. [W.P. Nos. 3776 and 3778 of 2013], this abusive applicant deserves to be disqualified. But the Commissioner desist from disqualifying him, hoping that he would not create such situation in future and for now
a) records its admonition and condemnation of this cantankerous individual for his misuse of RTI which is highly unbecoming of the education he acquired, and
b) records a stern warning that any such attempt to harass the colleagues with same or similar RTI application would be viewed as serious obstruction to activity of public authority and appropriate action as per law and judicial interpretation shall be taken against him.
The Commission directs the public authority to a) put this order along with affidavits of the doctors, and the
responses given to hid earlier RTI requests in public domain i.e., official website,
b) send copies to the concerned Directorate & others, the officers who were harassed by him and
c) place a copy on notice board at a conspicuous place for understanding of general people and
d) reject or reply any future repetitive RTI requests, if any, from this appellant in future with reference to this order.
Besides, the Commission recommends the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against him for this kind of indiscipline examining whether this amounts to misconduct because his continuous misuse of RTI is resulting in obstruction of activities of the public authority, causing criminal waste of time of PIO, his colleagues and the CIC, and inform the progress to the Commission. Any non compliance of this order would lead to action under Section 20 of RTI Act, and any victim officer of his harassment is under a duty to report against non-compliance of this order. Heard on 13.8.14. Appellant present
[CIC/DS/A/2013/001740 - SA]. Respondent is represented by Shri
H. R. Sharma and several officers at different times. For last two
hearings [in CIC/DS/A/2013/001741 – SA &
CIC/DS/A/2013/002561 – SA] including this appellant, though
received the hearing notice, chose to be absent. In continuation of
his habit of filing complaints and making irresponsible remarks
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 3
against all officers, he filed request to transfer the second appeal
from this commission with baseless allegation that for ‘extraneous
reasons’ the Commission is supporting the respondent public
authority. The Commission dismisses his allegations as irresponsible
similar to his abuse of right to information.
Common Order is passed for all the three Appeals as the nature of
information sought through the RTI applications are the same and
the parties involved are also the same.
2. The Appellant, a senior Doctor, filed an RTI application
dt.2.7.2013 with the PIO, Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD/
Maulana Azad Medical College (hereinafter referred as MAMC)
seeking information on eleven points [CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-
SA & 001741-SA] with respect to his original application for
furnishing information U/S 2 (f)(i)(j), 4(1)(b)(d), 7(1)(9) of RTI Act
2005 on action taken on appellants 1st reminder dated 17-06-2013
no. GAD/2013/24640/19-8 and representation dated 27.2.13 to
Chief Secretary, GNCT, regarding Ghost (that is how he described
in his applications) employment in GNCT, Dept. of Health, sans
post for 23 years, freak promotions and pay fixation under
FR 22 against 3 non-existent temporary post of assistant
professors in ophthalmology that ceased to exist as on 1. 3.
1990 at M.A.M.C. Viz (i) File Noting made at GNCT, Deptt. Of
Health & FW in relation to the representation dated 27-02-2013 and
1st reminder dated 17-06-2013 to Chief Secretary , GNCT, (ii)
Decisions taken by GNCT, Health Dept to continue/discontinue with
ghost employment as director professor for Drs Kamlesh and Mrs
Uma against non-existent temporary post of assistant professor
carrying a fixed sanctioned time scale, that ceased to exist as on 1-
3-90. etc. The PIO responded on 19.7.13 & 1.8.2013. Not satisfied
with, he filed an appeal on 31.7.2013 & 12.8.2013 with the First
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 4
Appellate Authority of the respective Public authority, who disposed
it of vide order dt.9.9.13 & 30.8.2013.
3 In CIC/DS/A/2013/002561-SA, the appellant had filed
RTI application dated 12-8-2013 with MAMC regarding Original
application for furnishing information U/S 2 (f)(i)(j), 4(1)(b)(d),
7(1)(9) of RTI Act 2005 on action taken on appellants 1st reminder
dated 17-06-2013 no. GAD/2013/24640/19-8 and representation
dated 27.2.13 to Chief Secretary, GNCT, regarding ‘Ghost’
employment in GNCT, Dept. Of Health, sans post for 23
years, freak promotions and pay fixation under FR 22 against
3 non-existent temporary post of assistant professors in
ophthalmology that ceased to exist as on 1 3 90 at M.A.M.C
Viz (i) total number of existing faculty post at MAMC, New Delhi (ii)
Break up of existing temporary and permanent faculty post at
MAMC & (iii) Break up of existing posts, those of CHS and those
sanctioned by DA/GNCT etc. PIO responded on 11-09-2013. Being
unsatisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the appellant
preferred First Appeal on 14-09-2013. FAA in his Order dated 08-
10-2013 stated that Information available has been given to the
appellant and thereafter he directed that as much information as is
available be given to the appellant.
4. The Commission on perusal of the information sought
observed that the same has been furnished earlier in response to
his various RTI applications. It is the Appellant’s contention that
three persons were appointed in certain posts which were not
sanctioned and it is his belief that once it is established that the
posts were not sanctioned, the people occupying those posts for
several years would lose them. At the first instance it appears as if
appellant was exposing an irregularity, but after asking some
questions to him and respondents, it is discovered there was
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 5
nothing like that and his questions sans public interest. With
irresponsible repetitions it assumed serious form of abuse that can
be classified as frivolous, vexatious and annoying. It also causes
mental injury to the officers who were in those posts creating a
baseless apprehension that they might lost their posts because of
this persons perceived technical problem, which in fact was
nobody’s case. Three of his senior colleagues represented to
Commission in his presence how they were being harassed and put
to constant trouble of doubt and uncertainty just for the sake of
that by his repetitive applications under RTI and other fora. They
called it as a kind of sadism. They made written submissions also.
5. Dr. Usha Yadava (Professor, M.A.M.C) in her written
statement submitted before the Commission has stated that :
a. The appellant who is a junior officer to her has been filing
complaints and representations incessantly on such grounds,
which are false and baseless.
b. She submitted that the representations filed by him before
the Cadre Controlling Authority i.e MHFW, Government of
India, led to MHFW baring him from filling further
representations vide its Order No. A 12034/26/2010 – CHS
III dated 25-05-2012.
c. She also stated that Dr Pandey (appellant) has moved from
pillar to post in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi
High Court, and in the past, the appellant had moved the
Supreme Court on the same matter and topic. His O.A 1284
of 1997 before the CAT, his Writ Petition before the Delhi
High Court (W.P(C) No. 4023 of 2011) were all dismissed
through concurrent findings.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 6
d. She further submitted that even after the ruling of the Delhi
High Court, he has filed numerous requests under the Right
to Information Act, before the M.A.M.C, on the same issue on
which relief was denied to him by the court, in order to
further harass her and the officials and further create
problems in the functioning of the institute.
e. That the behavior of the appellant is not becoming of a senior
officer, this compulsive behavior must be stopped for the
proper functioning of the M.A.M.C and Guru Nanak Eye
Centre. Urgent action in this regard is also required so that
the undersigned and all the parties, including Dr. Pandey, can
return to the proper discharge of their day to day activities
without further delay, in the general interest of the public and
the hundreds of patients that are waiting to be treated at the
Guru Nanak Eye Centre. The current state of events mean
that substantial manpower and resources – all at the cost of
taxpayer – are wasted on the issue even after the ruling of
the judicial bodies i.e CAT and Delhi H.C. In order to carry
out the work assigned to each doctor by the Union of India,
such repeated attempts to harass render it extremely difficult
to carry out medical duties.
f. On the basis of above facts and circumstances, “I request
that Dr. Pandey may kindly be restricted and be barred from
filing further requests under the RTI Act I respect of this
matter before any Competent authority at once, and do
justice to general public, officers/other officials of the MAMC”.
6. Shri. Hans Raj Singh, Head of Office in Maulana Azad Medical
College, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in his affidavit submitted before the
Commission as follows:
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 7
a. That Dr P. K Pandey is habitual in filing RTI applications
against Dr. Kamlesh and Dr Usha Yadava, both are working
as Director-Professor in Ophthalmology Department.
b. That Dr Pandey is not satisfied with the replies provided by
the SPIO, MAMC and is frequently filling First Appeal before
the First Appellate Authority, MAMC against his RTI
applications.
c. That Dr. Pandey preferring Second Appeals before the Central
Information Commission.
d. That in the department Dr Pandey has filed numerious RTI’s
before Various SPIO in various Govt. Department.
e. That due to the filling of RTI’s by Dr Pandey, the work of
Guru Nanak Eye Centre is hampered due to personally
attending appeals in CIC and various Courts by Dr. Pandey,
Dr Kamlesh and Dr. Usha Yadava as they have to attend
OPD, Operation theatre and other duties assigned to them.
That due to appeal, SPIO, APIO and two-three other officials
of the MAMC are regularly attending CIC and other courts due
to this litigation work of office is badly hampered.
f. That Dr. Pandey had filed cases in Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT) and after dismissal, he filed OA before
Principal Bench, CAT. After dismissal of that OA, he has
moved to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and its Principal bench
of CAT, there also, the case was dismissed and now, he filed
SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the
matter is sub-judice. Earlier, he filed several representations
before various Competent authorities and his cadre
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 8
controlling authority has rejected his representation and was
barred for filling representations before GOI.
g. That in the directions of the higher authority at the level of
the state government, a warning was also issued by Dy.
Director of Administration, MAMC for desisting him from
these type of activities.
h. That mostly Dr. Pandey had filed RTI on the similar issues i.e
Regarding employment and ghost posts.
7. Dr Kamlesh in her written submission before the Commission
have submitted as follows :
a. She was working as Director-Professor (Ophthalmology) at
MAMC with total service of more than 30 years.
b. That she and her Colleague Prof. Usha Yadava were being
harassed by routine RTI applications by the appellant
repeatedly on the same subject and issues with little twisting
of facts for more than 6 years.
c. That the appellant was only putting the applications before
MAMC, but also before Health Ministry, Delhi, Govt. of India,
M/O Health, Secretaries of Health both at the Centre and the
state, Lt. Governor’s Office, Chief Secretary, Delhi and others
resulting in huge loss of time and manpower which could
have been utilized for so many public cause.
d. That the appellant was misusing the RTI and misguiding,
threatening and harassing the officials in the name of RTI
with the intention of getting false documents for his favour
with clear intention to defame me.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 9
e. That he was also warned by the Ministry not to do so
especially when all the relevant information has been
provided to him. That the appellant had examined all my
personal files including the service book many a times and
obtained the required information as he desired. The
appellant had also taken the matter of Seniority with these
documents to the court twice including review petition and his
application was dismissed twice.
f. That the appellant has filed the same matter as agreed to
gain seniority on the basis of irrelevant and baseless grounds
because of his one directional misunderstanding and
delusional thoughts.
g. That the appellant has caused lot of disturbance and
harassment, as we are the senior most faculties with lot of
clinical, surgical, academic, research and administrative work
which are disturbed due to these baseless and repeated RTI
applications on the same issue to defame us especially when
all the available information has been provided.
h. It is therefore, requested that Dr. P.K Pandey be debarred
from filing such RTI applications in future and warn him not
to misuse the power of RTI Act.
8. The Commission in its earlier order
No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA delivered on 25-6-2014 in the
case of R.C.Jain Vs. DTC, with respect to RTI applications which
are repetitive and harassing in nature had observed as follows :
“Repetitive use of RTI an ABUSE
5. The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 10
harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act, by a disgruntled employee. 6. The respondent officers made fervent appeals to the Commission that they were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles; and about individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance. The Commission found that the applicant was one of the four disgruntled employees against whom action was taken or their claims were denied.
RTI: Not a rendezvous of disgruntled elements
7. …. The Commission also noted an atmosphere of fear and worry was spread in the offices and the officers are hesitating to take action against erring staff members for fear of facing flood of questions under RTI. ….. …
Placing RTI abusers information in public domain
9. To address the problem of ‘harassing & repeated questions’, the Commission recommends the respondent authority to analyze all the RTI applications filed by such appellants, compile all the questions contained therein and indicate the information provided against them. That consolidated information along with a background note based on facts, avoiding unfounded allegations should also be placed on website besides sending a copy to the applicant and the concerned Information Commission. The Commission also recommends exhibiting such information in their notice board at the entrance or at any conspicuous place in their office and posting a photograph of such a notification on the website. 10. The entire information about the repeated RTI questions by appellants, and the documents given by the Public authority, the private interest of the appellants, if any, lack of public interest in the said RTI applications, etc. also should be kept in the public domain, so that people do not resort to filing repeated vexatious RTI applications leading to clogging of the public authority and depriving them of their valuable time that could have been spent on performance of their regular duties. The information in website also will serve as response to repeated RTI question. The same may be referred in the responses to first and second appeals. ….
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 11
Res judicata = already decided
12. …. Though Right to Information Act, 2005 did not have any specific provision to bar the re-petition for information like Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the universal principle of civil justice ‘res judicata’ will certainly apply and the repeated request need to be rejected with an emphasis. Two Latin maxims form the basis of this rule, they are: ‘interest republicae ut sit finis litium’ (= it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and ‘nemo devet vis vexari pro una et eadem cause” (=no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause). If the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions entertain the repeated RTI applications, there will be no end to the information litigation and the public authorities would be continuously taxed for no fault of them. .... 14. The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the information received, file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority as the uncertainty continues. Even the PIO of Central Information Commission is flooded with such repeated questions from thousands angles by same person running into hundreds of RTI applications. As the PIOs went on answering, more and more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing. ….
No scope for repeating under RTI Act 21. The Commission thus holds that though RTI Act, did not specifically provide as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the objective and various provisions of RTI Act, that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly. ….
Commission shall record ABUSE, admonish ABUSER 25. There is no provision in RTI Act, 2005 to penalize the applicant for abusing his right to information or clogging public office. However the Commission recommends that the fact of abuse of RTI Act, 2005 shall be recorded and Commission should notify the admonition, direction or recommendation if any, to the applicants not to resort to abuse anymore along with recommendation to public authorities to refuse such questions. If any applicant resorts to three such repeated RTI applications, the Commission may even recommend blocking
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 12
of such abuse and direct the public authority not to entertain the same applicant anymore, which also has to be notified.
Waste of public time and obstructing RTI
26. All the above discussion can be consolidated into: (i) Even a single repetition of RTI application would
demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
(ii) Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction of flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.
Citizen has no Right to Repeat
27….. this Commission observes: (i) The citizen do not have a right to repeat the same or
similar or slightly altered information request under RTI Act, 2005, for which he already got response.
(ii) Once an RTI application is answered, the appellants shall refrain themselves from filing another RTI application against the public authority as once information is received and held by them or posted in public domain, because such information is deemed to have ceased to be ‘held’ by the public authority.
Repetition shall be ground of refusal (iii) Such repetition shall be considered as reasonable ground
of refusal under the RTI Act. (iv) An applicant or appellant repeating the RTI application or
appeal either once or multiple times, suppressing the fact of earlier application and receipt of the answer, the CPIO of public authority shall reject it forthwith after intimating it along with reasons.
Appeals can be rejected (v) The First Appellate Authority and Commission shall be right
and reasonable to consider this as a ground for rejecting the first or second appeal, respectively among other reasons if any. “
9. The appellant in this case being a very highly educated doctor,
behaved in a most unreasonable manner, not showing any inclination
to listen to reason, finding happiness when his agonized colleagues
were explaining the sufferings and harassment he has been inflicting
on them since years without any goal or purpose. They argued that
assuming that there was no technical sanction for their posts, his
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 13
belief that they would be thrown out would be nothing but wild
delusion. When they were appointed by a duly constituted select
committee they would get a right to employment which cannot be
deprived of by deficiency if any and it will become a legitimate duty of
employer to rectify the deficiency and continue the employment. They
said that he finds enjoyment by putting all three of the colleagues in
mental agony. They pleaded to put an end to the torture.
10. When Commission tried to tell him that RTI did not provide for
repeating same RTI application after procuring information as that
information was already held by him, he was not inclined to
understand and filed some more such petitions.
11. The Commission finds him to be a cantankerous litigant and
continuous trouble maker for the office and colleagues. He
deserves to be disqualified as abuser of RTI being an obstruction in
public activities of the office. It appears from his numerous petitions
before numerous fora on the same subject that he might have left with
no time to perform the duty of ophthalmological doctor and professor,
as per his designation to the extent that time was consumed by his
frivolous and vexatious applications. Besides dereliction of duties, he is
also creating nuisance obstructing others from performing their duties
with free mind and in fearless atmosphere. The Commission finds
there is substance in their agony that he remained a pain and speed
breaker and major nuisance in the office, performance of service by
him could be doubted as he spends all his time in filing frivolous
applications, discussing about it with others and thus rendering
disservice to the hospital. The Commission finds that any amount of
condemnation for unreasonable conduct of this educated person is
insufficient in this case. The Commission notes that persons like him
will create disbelief and destroy the faith in RTI and other legal
mechanisms. The Commission observes that all victims of his
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 14
repeated nuisance applications have every right to pursue for their
remedies in both civil and criminal proceedings against him. They can
examine whether his repeated petitions would fall under the definition
of a crime under Section 167 of Indian Penal Code which deals with
the public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause
injury, for which a punishment of imprisonment up to three years is
prescribed. His actions also might fall under the crime of public
nuisance under Section 268 as his acts cause injury, obstruction, or
annoyance to persons in the vicinity, for which punishment is provided
under Section 290 of IPC. Section 353 of IPC punishes a person who
assaults (creating an apprehension in the mind) with intent to prevent
or deter that person from discharging his duty as public servant, with
imprisonment up to two years. Three senior doctors are alleging that
by filing frivolous applications he is obstructing them from discharging
their duties as public servants. Besides, an atmosphere of serious
indiscipline is prevailing in office as he continuously obstructs the
public servants from performing their duties with these kind of
frivolous, vexatious mischievous petitions.
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay,
(2011) 8 SCC 497, while explaining the significance of RTI had also
observed as follows:
“67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 15
Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”
13. The Commission observes that the repeated questions under
RTI unrelated to transparency, devoid of public interest, full of
reasonless personal animosity against colleagues, besides filing
petitions before various fora, will amount to indiscriminate abuse of
RTI which become a tool to obstruct the work in the office and to
destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among the doctors
working in the respondent authority institution and RTI in his hands
got converted into a tool of oppression and intimidation of honest
doctors who are striving to perform their duties.
14. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in SHAIL SAHNI Vs. SANJEEV
KUMAR AND ORS. [W.P.(C) 845/2014] with regard to the Misuse
of the RTI Act had observed as follows :
“10. … This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be
appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this “sunshine Act”. A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen.”
15. The Commission finds that it is the duty of the Commission to
see that such blatant misuse of RTI Act should not be allowed
further and such situation need to be appropriately dealt with to
secure the faith of the public in this ‘Sun shine Act’ and remove
obstacles in functioning of public authority which would eventually
prevent public authority from focusing on transparency.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 16
DECISION :
16. As per the Madras HC judgment in P. Jayasankar Vs Chief
Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and Gunaseelan,
I.P.S. [W.P. Nos. 3776 and 3778 of 2013], this abusive
applicant deserves to be disqualified.
But the Commission desist from disqualifying him, hoping that he
would not create such situation in future and for now
a) records its admonition and condemnation of this
cantankerous individual for his misuse of RTI which is
highly unbecoming of the education he acquired, and
b) records a stern warning that any such attempt to harass
the colleagues with same or similar RTI application would be
viewed as serious obstruction to activity of public authority
and appropriate action as per law and judicial
interpretation shall be taken against him.
17. The Commission directs the public authority to
a) put this order along with affidavits of the doctors, and the
responses given to hid earlier RTI requests in public domain
i.e., official website,
b) send copies to the concerned Directorate & others, the
officers who were harassed by him and
c) place a copy on notice board at a conspicuous place for
understanding of general people and
d) reject or reply any future repetitive RTI requests, if any, from
this appellant in future with reference to this order.
18. Besides, the Commission recommends the public authority to
initiate disciplinary action against him for this kind of indiscipline
examining whether this amounts to misconduct because his continuous
misuse of RTI is resulting in obstruction of activities of the public
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 17
authority, causing criminal waste of time of PIO, his colleagues and the
CIC, and inform the progress to the Commission. Any non compliance
of this order would lead to action under Section 20 of RTI Act, and any
victim officer of his harassment is under a duty to report against non-
compliance of this order.
19. With above observations the Commission holds that adequate
and available information has been furnished to the appellant,
though he deserves no information as such, and accordingly the
cases are closed.
Sd/-
M. Sridhar Acharyulu Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Dy. Registrar
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 18
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 19
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 20
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 21
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 22
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 23
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 24
Address of the parties 1. The CPIO Department of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of NCT of Delhi 9th Level, A-Wing Delhi Secretariat IP Estate New Delhi 2. Prof. P.K.Pandey A-170, Pocket-04 Mayur Vihar Phase-I New Delhi