Shri.Dinesan.A.K, 1.State Public Information Officer and Deputy ... - RTI

The State Information Commission, KeralaPunnen Road,Thiruvananthapuram-695 039.Tel:0471 2335199, Fax:0471 2330920Email: sic@infokerala.org.inAP.No.393/2007/SICFile No.824/SIC-Gen1/07Shri.Dinesan.A.KAssistant,Finance (Inspection F) DepartmentSecretariat,Thiruvananthapuram.AppellantVs1.State Public Information Officer andDeputy Secretary,Kerala Public Service Commission,Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.2. Appellate Authority andAdditional Secretary (Rect),Kerala Public Service Commission,Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.RespondentsORDERShri.Dinesan.A.K had come before the State Information Commission onsecond appeal on a case relating to denial of information by the respondentpublic authority on 5.2.2007.The facts leading to the appeal are briefly summarised below:-The requester/appellant had approached the State Public InformationOfficer of the respondent public authority on 28.11.2006 seeking information byway of documents on 12 items. The request was considered by the State PublicInformation Officer and his request was rejected. The information was denied to

the requester on the ground that the requester hadn't followed the conditionswhile appearing for tests conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission(the respondent public authority) as laid down in the Rules of Procedure. Thematter was taken up on second appeal by the requester/appellant before theAppellate Authority in the respondent public authority on 12.1.2007. The samewas considered and the appellate authority also declined to interfere and changethe stand taken by the State Public Information Officer in the case and, alsosection 8(1)(j) was invoked to reject his appeal, as his request did not involve anypublic interest. Aggrieved by that order, the requester/appellant approached theState Information Commission on 5.2.2007.The Commission called for a detailed report from the respondent publicauthority and also heard the appellant Shri.Dinesan.A.K and Shri.L.SanjeevaKamath, the State Public Information Officer and Deputy Secretary, Kerala PublicService Commission on 13.12.2007. The State Public Information Officer hadalso filed a detailed statement before the Commission. A quick run through therequest of the requester/appellant would doubtlessly give one an impression thatthe documents he had sought were connected with his 'Department test January2006' conducted by the respondent public authority and also the case ofdebarring him for 2 years from appearing for department test following an enquiryas conducted by the respondent public authority. During the hearing theappellant/requester submitted that he indeed had submitted his answer sheetson the first day, which fact has been denied by the officials deputed to conductthe examination by the respondent public authority. The appellant was given ashow cause memo but he was not, according to him, provided with sufficientinformation as one could expect on the case to defend his case properly. Hewas debarred for 2 years by the respondent public authority and subsequently hehad approached the Hon.High Court of Kerala challenging the action of therespondent public authority. The report as well as the statement filed by theState Public Information Officer had clearly indicated that the appellant hadviolated the Rules of Procedure for appearing in examinations conducted by therespondent public authority and his debarment was a natural consequence of theviolation. The respondent public authority had also invoked Section 8(1) (e) ofthe RTI Act while denying the information as there was no public activity orinterest involved in the case.After hearing both the appellant and State Public Information Officer ofthe respondent public authority and also perusing the relevant records, theCommission observed that it was the inalienable right of any accused officer toreceive all the information based on which charges were framed against him and,such officer should be given all opportunities to defend his case and, once a finaldecision is taken after completing all formalities to penalize him, the delinquentofficer should be left with any doubt with regard to theoffence/omission/commission committed by him. This alone would meet the endof natural justice. In the instant case, as could be clearly seen, therequester/appellant has not been provided with the basic information which couldbe used by him to defend his case properly. While the Commission would not2

comment on the end result of the enquiry, it would certainly comment andobserve the fact that the information sought was personal and, although therewas no public interest involved, it was relating to an enquiry in which therespondent public authority was one of the parties who was to finally take adecision in the matter and it could have been done only after affording allopportunities to the officer proceeded against. Therefore, this application ofSection 8(1) (j), as resorted to by the respondent public authority, could only beseen as misapplied and hence cannot be sustained. The Commission,accordingly proceeds to admit the appeal and direct the State Public InformationOfficer of the respondent public authority to provide the information sought for,free of cost, by the respondent/appellant within 10 days from receipt of this order.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Dated this, the 14h day of December, 2007.Authenticated copySecretary to Commission3