RTI Application on a Pending Disciplinary File
On 23 May 2024 an applicant submitted an RTI application at the counter of a Uttar Pradesh district office with the prescribed fee of ₹10, seeking three things:
(a) copies of the note sheet and correspondence in a departmental disciplinary proceeding against a senior clerk, in which a charge sheet was issued on 20 April 2024 and the inquiry is still pending; (b) the complete annual medical examination report of another clerk of the same office; (c) the name and designation of the officer who rejected his earlier representation.
The application was received by the assistant public information officer, who forwarded it to the public information officer only on 3 June 2024. The PIO replied on 5 July 2024, refusing (a) in full by citing Section 8(1)(h) on the ground that an investigation is pending, and refusing (b) as personal information, while supplying (c). No reasons were recorded on the file for either refusal, and the third party in (b) was never informed. The applicant has now approached the first appellate authority.
1. Examine the correctness of the refusal of items (a) and (b) and state what the PIO ought to have done under the Act.
Read the worked answer
(a) The refusal is not sustainable as framed. Section 8(1)(h) protects information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders; a departmental inquiry following a charge sheet is ordinarily not such an investigation. More fundamentally, an exemption cannot be applied by label: reasons must be recorded on the file, which was not done. The note sheet is not exempt as a class. The PIO should have tested any personal material against Section 8(1)(j) and its proviso, severed the exempt portions under Section 10 using the severability principle, and released the remainder.
(b) A medical examination report is plainly personal information under Section 8(1)(j); absent a public interest outweighing privacy, it may be refused. But the procedure was skipped: a Section 11 notice had to go to the other clerk within five days, he had ten days to make a representation, and the decision had to be taken within forty days of the request, that is by 2 July 2024.
In both cases the failure to record reasons is itself a defect, since Section 7 requires the rejection to be communicated with reasons.
2. Assess the delay: compute the due date, identify which provisions were breached, and state the consequences.
Read the worked answer
The 30-day period under Section 7(1) runs from receipt of the request by the public authority. Receipt was on 23 May 2024, so the reply was due by 22 June 2024 (8 days remaining in May plus 22 days of June). The reply of 5 July 2024 is therefore 13 days late. The 48-hour rule in the proviso to Section 7(1) applies only to information concerning life or liberty and is irrelevant here.
Separately, the APIO was bound by Section 6(3) to forward the application within five days, that is by 28 May 2024; forwarding it on 3 June was a breach by that officer.
Consequences: under Section 20(1) the State Information Commission may impose a penalty of ₹250 per day until the information is furnished - 13 × ₹250 = ₹3,250, subject to the overall cap of ₹25,000 - unless the PIO shows reasonable cause, and may recommend disciplinary action. Under Section 19(8)(b) the Commission may also award compensation for loss or detriment. The APIO's delay is for the public authority to deal with under its own disciplinary control.
3. What is the appellate remedy and what may the first appellate authority do on this record?
Read the worked answer
The first appeal lies under Section 19(1) to the officer senior in rank to the PIO, and must be filed within 30 days of the reply, that is by 4 August 2024.
On this record the appellate authority can, under Section 19(6), direct the PIO to take the decision afresh and disclose the severed portion of the note sheet, after recording the Section 8(1)(j) and public interest findings. On item (b) it should not simply order disclosure; if no Section 11 notice was issued, it should direct the PIO to complete that procedure and then decide, since the third party's right of representation cannot be defeated at the appellate stage.
The appellate authority should also record a finding on the 13-day delay and on the APIO's failure to forward the application within five days, and forward the file to the public authority for action against the officers responsible. The applicant must be informed that the appellate order is itself appealable to the State Information Commission under Section 19(3) within 90 days.