CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing,...

CIC/NCFWO/A/2017/135800 Page 1

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Central Information Commissioner

CIC/NCFWO/A/2017/135800

Nammi Bano v. PIO, National Commission for Women

RTI : 21.12.2016

First Appeal : 25th Jan 2017 FAO : Nil Second Appeal : 25.05.2017

Hearing : 06.06.2017; 20.07.2017; 28.08.2017 Appellant : Present

Public Authority : Absent

Decided On : 21.09.2017

FINAL ORDER

1. When the right of woman is violated and rule of law does not work, she looks

to National Commission for Women for support and sympathy. If men violate

rights of woman in NCW office itself, and rule of law does not work, where

should she go?

2. Appellant in her second appeal contended: She joined as Research Assistant

on contract in January 2010, which was extended on 25.5.2016 to 24.11.2016

(for six months), after which there was no intimation whether her term was

extended or not. Her “contract has not been extended solely with the

objective to victimize and harass her for daring to raise her voice against

sexual harassment by none other than the Deputy Secretary vide her

complaint dated 10.03.2016. They extended her contract for three months

vide order dated 16.03.2016 and added the following line with malafide

intention: “.....................Ms Nammi Bano is advised to improve her

performance considerably other she cannot be given any further

extension......." Prior to 16.03.2016 there was not an iota of dissatisfaction

with the work of appellant as can be seen from the previous Office Order (s) /

Contract Extension Letter (s). The Committee has not disposed of the

complaint in a judicious manner as has been mandated in the Sexual


Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013 (Act No. 14 of 2013). The members in the Internal

Complaints Committee (ICC) were contractual staff of NCW. How can it be

expected from a contractual staff to go against the management? And this

Contractual Staff was later enormously rewarded by increasing their

remuneration two-fold without any adequate justification. The order

increasing remuneration states that the expenditure involved is to be charged

under Plan Head "Research Studies" whereas their work does not correlate to

"Research Study" in any manner whatsoever. Even the witnesses who gave

statements before ICC were also adequately compensated for their

contribution, by doubling the remuneration without any justification. Appellant

applied on 03.06.2016 for complete set of statements given before ICC. She

referred to the guidelines of DOPT issued in respect of the Role of the ICC in

the matters of Sexual Harassment at Work Place:

In its Order dated 26.04.2004 in the Writ Petition No. 173-177/1999 in

the case of Medha Kotwal Lele and Ors. Vs. UoI & Ors [2012]

INSC 643, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the Reports of

the Complaints Committee shall be deemed an Inquiry Report under

the CCS Rules. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority will act on the

report, in accordance with the Rules'. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 of CCS

(CCA) Rules, 1965 has accordingly been amended to provide that the

Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be the Inquiry Authority for

the purpose of these Rules by the Notification No. 11012/5/2001-

Estt.A dated 01.072004 (GSR 225 dated 10th July, 2004). In view of

the said amendment made to the CCS (CCA) Rules, the instructions

contained in DOPT's O.M. dated 12th Dec., 2002 stands modified and

the report of the Complaints Committee should be treated as an

inquiry report and not a preliminary report (DOP&T O.M. No.

110131312009-Estt. (A) Dated the 21st July, 2009] A DOPT OM dated

12.12. 2002 as amended by O. M. dated 4.8. 2005]. The Complaint

Committee is the competent authority in such cases to decide the

procedure. However, since the report of the committee is to be treated


as the enquiry report under the CCS (CCA) rules and the Disciplinary

Authority is to take action on that report as per the same rules (as

mentioned at point no 8 above) the procedure prescribed in rule 14 of

the CCS (CCA) Rules are to be followed as far as practicable. (DOP&T

OM. No. 11013/3/2009-Estt. (A) dated the 3"d August, 2009]

She alleged: “No such procedure was adhered to in her compliant and also in

that of another female staff (Ms. Sucheta Verma) against the same Official.

All this while the NCW maintained quietus on the issue and slowly and

slightly favoured the Official and subverted the entire Inquiry and after the

Inquiry Report was submitted it did nothing than to wait for an opportunity to

throw-out her.”

Saga of appellant under RTI Act

She filed RTI application dated 21.12.2016 to Shri G. Nagrajan, CPIO

(N.C.W.), Plot No. - 21, FC — 33, Jasola Institutional Area (New Delhi —

110025), seeking file notings, correspondence regarding extension (or non-

extension) of contract of her employment, inquiry report, statements of

witnesses, action taken on report etc through 16 points. As per Section 7 (1)

of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO was to give the requested information within

48 Hours / 30 days of the application, however, NO INFORMATION was

received. A reply dated 30.12.2016 of Shri G. Nagrajan, was received. She

made telephone calls in response to instructions in that letter, but they were

not answered. Her e-mail dated 06.01.2017 to the CPIO, NCW, also was

without any response. She filed the First Appeal dated 25.01.2017.

On 23/24.03.2017 she received a call from the PS to Joint Secretary, NCW,

calling her for a meeting on her First Appeal, and she attended before the

First Appellate Authority on 27.03.2017 at 3.00, along with her cousin Sh

Nafisuddin. The proceedings were Video – recorded for no reason. Claiming

that some of the information was "Third Party Information" it was denied as

the consent has not been obtained. Such statements before ICC cannot be

treated as "Third Party Information". She claimed that she was in dire need

documents for contesting her case before the various Authorities and the


Competent Court as well. As there was no response to her RTI application,

emails, telephonic requests and the first appeal, visits and efforts after that,

she preferred second appeal under Section 19(3) of RTI Act.

3. The second appeal with above contention of the appellant is self explanatory.

It presents the background of harassment and denial of information on illegal

and unreasonable grounds. The official website

http://ncw.nic.in/frmRTI_Officers.aspx shows that Mr VVB Raju, the deputy

secretary of NCW was designated as First Appellate Authority. As per the

complaint of appellant this officer is accused of harassing the appellant. The

key portion of the complaint by the appellant dated 10.3.2016 submitted to

the Member Secretary is:

“But for the last four months I have been going through huge

problems in the same work and the routine. Some four months back a

new Deputy Secretary has come to the Commission whose attitude

and behavior is objectionable. Mr. V.V.B. Raju, who is the new D.S.,

started harassing me ever since he joined the Commission. He insists

that I should come to him in person to get his signatures and that too

in the evening, only after 5:30 p.m. When I refused to stay after 5:30

for getting his signatures, then he threatened he would complain to

the Chairperson of the Commission and will throw me out of the job”.

Breach of Statutory Obligations by First Appellate Authority

4. It is clear that the officer Mr. VVB Raju was accused of sexual harassment,

and he was same officer supposed to decide the first appeal as designated FA

authority under RTI Act. It is evidently a case of conflict of interest and yet he

was facilitated to continue. Sadly, the First Appellate Authority Mr. VVB Raju

did not hear the case properly and did not care to decide it within prescribed

time. This is in complete violation of Section 19 (6) of the RTI Act, which

says: "19 (6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub section (2) shall be

disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such

extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing

thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing..............."

The First Appellate Authority did not give any reason for delay.


The Office Memorandum No. 1/3/2008 IR, Dated 25th April, 2008, issued by

Department of Personnel and Training, titled “Guidelines for the Officers

designated as First Appellate Authorities under the RTI Act, 2005”, says:

38. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function. It

is therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see to it

that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to be have

been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate

authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the

decision arrived at.

………………..

………………..

40. If an appellate authority comes to a conclusion that the appellant

should be supplied information in addition to what has been supplied

to him by the CPIO, he may either (i) pass an order directing the

CPIO to give such information to the appellant; or (ii) he himself may

give information to the appellant while disposing off the appeal. In

the first case the appellate authority should ensure that the

information ordered by him to be supplied to the appellant

immediately. It would, however, be better if the appellate authority

chooses the second course of action and he himself furnishes the

information alongwith the order passed by him in the matter.

5. Mr. VVB Raju as First Appellate Authority has totally violated the provisions of

RTI Act and these guidelines. In M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company

Limited v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., while deciding Civil Appeal

No. 1438 of 2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed on 20th October

2008 that every appellant must be given a opportunity to be heard by a quasi

judicial authority, before passing any order. It held:

“35. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by

all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial

body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any

administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These

principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is

commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one

should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this

principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the

party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the

purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his

representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such


reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated.

Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the

case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of

the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an

approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and

shades with time. When the historic document was made at

Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle

found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir

Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate interrogate and

adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of

Works (1963 (143) ER 414), the principle was thus stated:

Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called

upon to make his defence. "Adam" says God, "where art thou has

thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that though

should not eat".

Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined,

enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and

luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond.

36. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid

down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of

the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by

a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an

order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such

authority from doing injustice.”

6. The First appellate authority has not followed the principles of natural justice.

He neither gave a proper notice nor conducted proper hearing besides not

deciding the case within prescribed time. He should have recused from being

FAA in this case as a complaint was submitted against him accusing sexual

harassment. The NCW should have appointed another authority to hear her

first appeal.

7. Second appeal explains that the appellant is not only the victim of sexual

harassment by a Deputy Secretary, her rights under the 2013 Act and right to

information under RTI Act also violated.

8. Surprisingly the National Commission for Women did not respond to her

complaint, not conducted inquiry properly and disregarded to the guidelines of

DoPT, the Supreme Court, and 2013 Act.


9. The second appeal clearly shows that she was further victimized because of

her bold complaint against sexual harassment of First Appellate Authority, by

reducing her term of contract and then by removing from her position. First

her contractual term of job was reduced, then not extended, along with two

other employees Mr. Ishwar Chandra and Smita Jha. Thereafter, these two

employees were re-instated in the month of April 2017, but appellant was left

out. The sudden increase in the remuneration of contractual employees who

were on inquiry committee and witnesses strengthen the allegation of

conspiracy to harass the appellant and strategic plan to remove her. The NCW

should not have abdicated the good governance principles of responding to

complaint and following two statutes and guidelines of DoPT in dealing with

RTI Application and also the First Appeal, and totally ignoring the serious

complaint of sexual harassment, against Mr. V.V.B. Raju.

10.The appellant was further denied her right to access to information and also

right to access to justice by refusing to provide any response to any of her

oral, written, email representations, complaints and RTI request/appeals.

11.It is not just the accused officer VVB Raju, but also the office of the NCW was

alleged of non-response and further victimization of victim. The appellants

sordid story explains how several staff members were acting together to deny

her rights.

Breach of RTI Act by CPIO

12.The claim of the CPIO Shri Nagarajan, Under Secretary, that the ‘information

sought was voluminous, as per section 7(9) of RTI Act and no larger public

interest was involved’ was factually and legally incorrect. Section 7(9) can be

used only when the demanded information necessitates disproportionate

diversion of resources, which was not even attempted to be established by

the CPIO.

13.The appellant complained that though she was provided inspection of related

files on 27.03.2016, the inquiry report or related documents were not

provided to her. She was again asked by ICC of NCW to appear before them

on 12th April, 2017 and that meeting and proceedings were video recorded,


which created a threatening environment. The denial under Section 8(1)(j)

saying that was third party information and consent of witnesses was

required, was also not correct. The statements of witnesses cannot be

considered as third party information. The complainant has right to have

statements of witnesses, because without those copies she cannot cross

examine the witnesses or defend her claim. It is against the principles of

natural justice to deny the copies of those statements. Even an accused in

criminal case will be given those copies besides examining the witnesses in

his presence.

Decision

14.It is not known why NCW office was acting totally against the rights of the

appellant and there was not an iota of effort to address her grievance or

complaint or a problem and why the RTI wing of the NCW has totally blocked

the access to information to the appellant. And above all the Member

Secretary is silent on her complaint.

15.Though the appellant elaborated 16 requisition points, all of them could have

been addressed with simple offer of inspection and furnishing of chosen

documents as per RTI Act.

16.The submission of the appellant reflect unhealthy environment at workplace in

the forum which supposed to protect the rights of women. Her right to life,

right to work and right to information were seriously endangered by sexual

harassment by senior offcier.

17.Because the allegations leveled against the NCW officers are of serious

nature, and that there was no representation in the hearing from NCW, the

staff of this CIC contacted the CPIO for their response. He was informed that

he can send a written response at least. But there was no response till today.

Non-response of National Commission for Women to two complaints of sexual

harassment within their organization, allowing an officer who was accused of

sexual harassment, to deal with the first appeal under RTI Act ignorance of


the notice from CIC was surprising. Section 10 of the National Commission for

Women Act, 1990 says:

Section 10. Functions of the Commission.—(1) The Commission

shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:— (a)

investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguards

provided for women under the Constitution and other law;….

(e) take up the cases of violation of the provisions of the

Constitution and of other laws relating to women with the

appropriate authorities;

(f) look into complaints and take suo moto notice of matters

relating to—

(i) deprivation of women’s rights;

(ii) non-implementation of laws enacted to provide protection

to women and also to achieve the objective of equality and

development;

(iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or

instructions aimed at mitigating hardships and ensuring

welfare and providing relief to women,

18.At least in case of this appellant, the NCW has totally ignored its primary

functions under section 10. If this is the fate of woman who is working as

research assistant in National Commission for Women, what will be the plight

of ordinary women outside the NCW? The National Commission for Women

has a Constitutional duty to explain reasons for breach of two statutes on

Sexual Harassment and Right to Information in case of this appellant. Why

NCW not acted upon a) two complaints of sexual harassment, b) removing the

appellant along with other two persons and reinstating those two persons,

which transaction looks like a plan to remove appellant only, c) increasing

remuneration of members of ICC and d) not providing the information sought

and witnesses claiming lame and illegal excuses to deny the information.

19.Hence, the Commission directs:


a) To furnish their response on this alleged inaction (explained in para 18

above)

b) To facilitate inspection to the appellant on 27.06.2017 at 11:00 a.m. of

files of ICC, statements, inquiry report, action taken on that, and provide

certified copies of the documents sought, free of cost, along with the files

pertaining to increasing remuneration of ICC members, and witnesses, file

notings of extension of contract of appellant including remarks of

satisfactory work, along with the inquiry report and action taken report on

that, free of cost;

c) The CPIO Mr. G Nagarajan to show-cause why maximum penalty should

not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information sought by

the appellant within stipulated time, before 14.07.2017.

d) The Deputy Secretary, Mr. V.V.B. Raju, considering him as deemed PIO,

to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him

for obstructing the access to information as alleged above, before

14.07.2017;

e) The First Appellate Authority Mr. VVB Raju explain why disciplinary action

should not be recommended against him for violating law in dealing with

first appeal under RTI Act, in spite of being accused of sexual harassment

of the complainant, which could be a clear case of conflict of interest

f) The Member Secretary to explain why the NCW should not be ordered to

pay compensation to the appellant for the harassment, and to explain his

action/inaction on the complaint of the appellant

g) In exercising the powers under section 18 (1) of RTI Act, the respondent

authority to conduct inquiry in to the appellant’s complaints against Mr.

VVB Raju, the increase in remuneration of inquiry committee members

and witnesses before inquiry committee in case of complaint of sexual

harassment, and provide the report to this Commission, before

14.07.2017. Non-response by the prescribed date compels the

Commission to presume that has nothing to explain and to proceed

further under RTI Act, 2005.


20.The Commission recommends the Chairperson of National Commission for

Women to consider this second appeal, including this order, as a complaint

against inaction in NCW on the complaints of sexual harassment and breach

of RTI, to save the credibility and reputation of NCW, within reasonable time

and perform its duty to cleanse the RTI wing including the First Appellate

Authority to make it objective and secure it from misconduct and breach by

officers.

Proceedings on 20.7.2017

21. Appellant Ms Nammi Bano, her brother, legal counsel Ms Harsh Chachra,

former CPIO Mr. Nagarajan, new CPIO Mr A Ahuja, Member-Secretary Dr

Satbir Bedi IAS, Deputy Secretary Mr V V B Raju were present. Officers

explained that they facilitated inspection of all available files to the appellant,

her brother and legal counsel on 7.7.2017 and more than 950 pages of

information as sought were dispatched to the appellant. Appellant agreed that

inspection was facilitated as per the CIC order but, the papers sought were yet

to be received by her. The CPIO said that all the certified copies were sent by

post on 17th July 2017 and they might be delivered sooner or later.

22. The appellant Ms Bano and her counsel claimed that the service file of Ms Bano,

file of Mr VV B Raju with papers about his appointment, extension of service

etc were not shown to her; some of the files were incomplete while most of

them are in a highly disorderly manner, without having serial numbers; a very

important file about internal complaints committee inquiring into her complaint

and another complaint of Ms Sucheta Verma were not properly arranged; the

two inquiries were mixed up and it requires a lot of time to find out the papers

in order and understand; they do not know why the two inquiries into Sexual

Harassment complaints were mixed up; claimed that the file of appointment

and extension of Mr. VVB Raju, Deputy Secretary and First Appellate Authority

under RTI Act, who is also accused in complaint of sexual harassment by the

appellant, was not shown to her, on the excuse that the file was under process

with Chairperson.

23. The note written by the CPIO Mr. Ahuja on day of inspection 7.7.2017,

reflected this point that the file of VVB Raju was with the cp. To a question, Mr.


Ahuja CPIO answered that the CP means Chairperson and submitted that the

file could not be shown because it was with the Chairperson. It is clear that the

order of this CIC was partially not complied with.

24. The counsel for appellant Ms Harsh Chachra stated that waiting for more than

one year and continuous efforts to secure some papers was successfully ended

with inspection but the non-production of important files, incompleteness of

some files, missing papers, disorderly maintenance of files, lack of sequential

page numbers to files suspected the Commission has used deliberate confusion

and created ambiguity to deny the information. Lack of time and number on

files were other reasons that made the inspection incomplete. Hence the

appellant pleaded for another comprehensive inspection of files and requested

for the release of documents required.

25. Appellant Nammi Bano made highly emotional appeal to the Commission about

continuous harassment by Mr. VVB Raju, ever since he assumed office of

Deputy Secretary and FAA at NCW. She alleged that: Mr. VVB Raju used to

instruct her to obtain his signatures on the files personally, and used to keep

the files pending until she brings them; when she brings the files, she was

asked to wait for a long time beyond the office hours; She represented to

chairperson and other officers including one whom she has to report, i.e.

immediate boss, about this harassing conduct of Mr Raju, but they were

strongly defending Mr Raju; She was advised to take files to him, as she was

subordinate and She was appreciated by several officers for her work, her

reporting officer also directed her to go to Mr. Raju personally with the files;

When she refused, Mr. Raju started spoiling her unblemished career, and

attempted to build file during reissuance of term of contractual employment as

research associate; her salary was reduced from Rs 10,000 to 8.000: Three

research associates(including herself) were not re-issued with the contract and

later he issued appointment contracts to two others, thereby conspired to

remove her on some complaints which were not filed by anybody; as Mr.

V.V.B. Raju enjoyed complete support from Chairperson and others, he was

emboldened to continue sexual harassment; there was no action at all on her

complaint, her colleague-witnesses were at the mercy of Mr. V.V.B. Raju and


other officers for extension of their employment contracts and hence could not

fearlessly talk about truth of sexual harassment during inquiry; everybody

knew about his conduct, but none dared to give witness against him; Ms.

Rakesh Rani, Research Assistant spoke about truth of his misconduct, but she

is now being harassed; other witnesses told her that they cannot risk their jobs

and increments; the public authority suppressed the information sought

deliberately; Mr.Raju prevented the CPIO from giving information; Mr. Raju

prevented even the first appellate authority from hearing the appeal;

chairperson was having all support for Mr. Raju but no empathy towards her;

Chairperson did not consider her personal representation at all; Chairperson

withheld the key files from her to deny her access under RTI, Chairperson

instructed the office people not to speak to her, because of which none were

communicating with her till she was thrown out; in spite of CIC order to

provide the documents for inspection; Mr. Raju continued to wield influence to

prevent supply of information and other files to her; only after intervention of

CIC inspection was allowed and the office claimed that a bundle of 950 plus

pages was dispatched to appellant, which is yet to be delivered.

26. Appellant was visibly upset at the presence of Mr V.V.B.Raju during the

heraring. None, including her brother and counsel, could console her, when

she was narrating the sufferings as tears rolled down. She went on giving

details of harassment- sexual and work related, for more than a year. Mr. Raju

maintained stoic silence all through without even attempting to condemn,

whereas the CPIO Nagarajan defended himself saying he disclosed information

as available. This silence is also could be a reflection, which could be

interpreted. If the allegation is concocted and totally untrue, any accused will

certainly react and make an attempt to explain. Mr. Raju made no such

attempt.

27. The officers defended Mr. Raju by saying that appellant filed sexual

harassment complaint because her services were not continued. Within

minutes the truth was spilled out when Commission inquired into dates. Files

disclosed that the Internal Complaints Committee heard the complaint of

sexual harassment and gave report on 11.5.2016, and she was discontinued


on November 2016, she filed RTI application on 21.12.2016. It was inevitable

for officers to agree that the discontinuation of service was proved to be

subsequent to her complaint against Mr. Raju. It proves that Mr. Raju enjoys

enormous support from these officers and that the appellant was victimized for

raising her voice against the sexual harassment by Mr Raju. The appellant and

her counsel explained how the inquiry was a sham, as most of the witnesses

could not open their mouth against Mr Raju as they are all at his mercy for

extension of their contractual appointment, there was one employee who stood

by truth but being victimized by the administration for it. As long as the

contractual employment continues as a valid system of recruitment, there is

no possibility to bring out truth in any inquiry, more so in sexual harassment

complaints, especially when entire administration supports the accused.

28. The victim-appellant narrated how she was fighting the powerful people in

NCW. She said, "it is evident that a woman-research scholar is not safe in the

NCW itself, how the women from outside could find any support or justice,

when the Chairperson herself supports the accused, where the victims should

go for help?”

29. A woman has right to file a complaint in NCW for alleged breach of her right to

life and liberty or honour at workplace, but when such breach happened in the

NCW itself, it is not possible for appellant-victim to file a complaint. With the

powers given by the statute, the NCW should have taken up her oral

representation or RTI Application or the written complaint as the complaint to

the NCW and should have conducted a hearing as per the NCW statute. It

appears the NCW has not only failed as a responsible employer at first instance

in responding to her complaint and RTI request, but also as Commission, a

statutory authority to hear case of a woman in their own office. This is not

expected of NCW. The Chairperson has a moral duty to explain the people

how NCW has thrown out a woman for complaining of sexual harassment

against her deputy secretary, while the accused is continuously enjoying all

support in office.

30. The Commission notes that NCW has partially complied with the order of CIC,

and attempted to cleanse the RTI wing by replacing the CPIO G Nagarajan with


Mr Ahuja. The appellant said some information was released only after Mr.

Ahuja has taken over as CPIO. She also said the present member-secretary

was responding positively.

31. The appellant said that she sought for grievances and complaints file to check

up whether any complaints were filed against her performance, as claimed by

Mr. Raju, based on which her services were not continued. But that file was

not placed before her during inspection. She wanted to check up the files of

two of her colleagues regarding their extension of services to compare with

her’s. She could not do so because of non-production of the files. Another

important file she wanted to see was that of the accused officer Mr. VVB Raju

to know how he entered the NCW and other details of his service. Most of the

information should have been provided under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act. This

file was simply not produced for the inspection on 7th July 2017. The reason

cited therein was, the file of Mr. V.V.B. Raju was under the process before

Chairperson. This shows still the office is not willing to give access to

information, which might help appellant to prove her allegations, which means

the office is trying to shield the accused. The Public Authority NCW has to

understand that Section 20 of RTI Act could be invoked by the Central

Information Commission on the non-compliance of its order, considering any

officer who obstructed access as deemed PIO. Section 20 says:

(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information

Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or

appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State

Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable

cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished

information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or

malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,

incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the

subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the

information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day

till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total

amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity

of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and

diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information


Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or

appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State

Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable

cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not

furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section

7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,

incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the

subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the

information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central

Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case

may be, under the service rules applicable to him.

32. Once the file is held or controlled by public authority, it is considered to be

public record and it has to be given in inspection subject to exceptions under

RTI Act. Nowhere in the RTI Act stated that information could be denied

because the file was with the head of the institution. It cannot be believed that

the Hon’ble Chairperson did not know about the order of the CIC for facilitating

inspection of concerned file. The allegation of sexual harassment against one

of the important officer in NCW is a serious issue, which should have been in

the knowledge of the Hon’ble Chairperson. It is not proper on the part of public

authority to withhold some of the files on this excuse, which amounts to non-

compliance of the order of the CIC and attracts penal proceedings under

Section 20 of the RTI Act. This Commission in its order dated 16.6.2017

specifically made a recommendation to the Hon’ble Chairperson, stating: “The

Commission recommends the Chairperson of National Commission for Women

to consider this second appeal, including this order, as a complaint against

inaction in NCW on the complaints of sexual harassment and breach of RTI, to

save the credibility and reputation of NCW, within reasonable time and perform

its duty to cleanse the RTI wing including the First Appellate Authority to make

it objective and secure it from misconduct and breach by officers”. There is

no reason to believe that Hon’ble Chairperson has not seen this order, which

also contained a direction to facilitate inspection in earlier paragraphs. The

material placed before and the contentions made by the parties leads the

Commission to inevitable inference that the Hon’ble Chairperson, knowing the

order of CIC, has obstructed the access to a key file by withholding it in her

custody from inspection and hence the Commission is compelled to consider

the Hon’ble Chairperson based on the files submitted, inspection notes and the


submissions of CPIO and the appellant, as deemed PIO, to the extent the file

held by her in this case. The Commission directs Hon’ble Chairperson Mrs.

Lalitha Kumaramangalam, instruct the CPIO to produce the files relating to Mr.

V.V.B. Raju first for inspection of the appellant, and then produce before the

Commission on 28.8.2017.

33. As the files and contentions prove that one file could not be accessed because

it was held by Honb’e Chairperson, Honb’le Chairperson has a duty to explain

why Section 20 should not be invoked against this obstruction, before

28.7.2017.

34. The Commission studied the detailed notes submitted by the appellant’s

counsel Ms Harsh Chachri made in handwriting during inspection of files on 7th

July 2017. She alleged in the notes that files were in the most disorganized

way of files which might result in suppressing the information or removing of

pages from anywhere. She complained that there were no sequential page

numbers given to the sheets in the files. If it is true, it is a serious lapse on the

part of public authority as far maintenance of records is concerned. There will

be a scope of later removals and additions if there is no serial number to

sheets. It is surprising that NCW maintain records in such a haphazard

manner. The appellant alleged that several sheets were missing from various

files. Appellant and her counsel vehemently contended that the files were

reshuffled or kept in disorderly manner, without page numbers, lack in

continuity, mixed up only to create ambiguity and confusion. The Commission

directs the Member Secretary to inquire into the complaint of reshuffling or

mixing up of the files, denial of access to several files during inspection and

submit the report explaining reasons for disorderly maintenance of files

including mixing of files, denial of access to files, who did this & under whose

orders, before 28th August 2017 and produce all those files during the hearing

on 28th August 2017. The Member Secretary shall ensure all the directions of

CIC dated 16.06.2017 and this be strictly complied with and a compliance

report be filed before 28th August 2017.


35. The Commission again directs Mr. A. Ahuja, CPIO to facilitate inspection of files

related to Mr. VVB Raju; files of Ms. Neha Mahajan and Mr. Varun Chhabra

related to their appointment, extensions, work profile while engaged in NCW

and file of complaints, to the appellant on 31.07.2017 at 11:00 a.m. as agreed

by both the parties, as per RTI Act. The Commission directs the appellant, her

brother and legal counsel to maintain peace and decorum at the time of

inspection the other two shall assist her in the inspection without creating any

disturbance. The Public authority has a duty to safeguard files and facilitate

smooth inspection of all the files required, without making any lame excuses

like the file with the Hon’ble Chairperson or some other office.

36. The Commission directs Ms. Vandana Gupta, the First Appellate Authority to

show-cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against her

for not performing her statutory duty of conducting the first appeal in a fair

manner, before 28th August 2017.

Penal Proceedings

37. Mr. Nagarajan, the CPIO till recently and Mr VVB Raju, the deemed PIO have

submitted explanations in response to the Show Cause Notices. Mr. Nagarajan

stated as follows:

(i) The application dated 21.12.2016 made by the applicant Ms. Nammi Bono

was duly processed in the Administration Section of NCW for providing the

information. The undersigned sent a reply to the applicant with the approval of

the Competent Authority on 30.12.2016 as the undersigned is satisfied with the

examination of the case by SO(Admn) which are covered under Section 8(1)(e)

and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2015. However, the applicant was asked to contact

the Section Officer, NCW to fix a mutually convenient date and time for

inspection of her personal file and take copies of relevant portion of the file by

making payment of prescribed fee.

(ii) It may be seen that the applicant specifically sought at 4(a) of her application

copies of the notings and correspondences in respect of the Officer Shri V.V.B.

Raju, Deputy Secretary from his engagement to his repatriation which was not

the factual position. Shri Raju is still working as deputy Secretary in NCW clearly

shows that the information sought is covered under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j)

of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the undersigned as CPIO denied the information in

respect of other functionaries of NCW with the approval of the Competent

Authority in NCW and allowing inspection of information in respect of the

applicant’s own file.

(iii) It is humbly submitted that the notice for hearing on 6.6.2017 was not

received by me and in fact that the same was received in NCW on 9.6.2017 at


11.30 a.m. only. The undersigned got relieved from NCW on 31.5.2017 and

joined back the parent Organization viz., NITI Aayog. Thus, the undersigned was

not in the knowledge of the hearing and came to know about the hearing held

only when I am served with the copy of the CIC order to seek the reply of the

undersigned by NCW on the order of CIC. Therefore, the hearing held was ex-

parte and needs revision.

38. Analysis of above explanation leads to inference that Mr. Nagarajan has

submitted the RTI application for the consideration of administration section,

sent reply with its approval, and he asked appellant to contact the Section

Officer, NCW to fix a mutually convenient date and time for inspection of her

personal file. It is clear that he has abdicated his statutory responsibility and

simply acted as agent of section officer of Administration Section. The

appellant is victim of administration section headed by Mr. V.V.B. Raju and

her request for information about administration itself, which was not only

denied by the CPIO but she was handed over to the administration itself. His

explanation about non-disclosure of file of Mr. V.V.B. Raju reveals that he did

not apply his mind independently and invoked provisions of exceptions

without any basis or justification. He did not discharge the burden of proof

prescribed under Section 19(5) of RTI Act. Several High Courts explained in

their orders that mere mention of section of exceptions would not be enough

and that PIO has to justify each of them. This PIO has totally ignored it. He

has not only unjustly denied the information but also harassed the appellant.

Though inspection was facilitated, several important files were not shown to

appellant, which amounts to non-compliance. Even without taking into

account this non-compliance, the illegal denial by PIO Mr. G. Nagarajan earlier

is established and corroborated by his explanation, and thus he is liable for

maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.

39. Accordingly Mr. G. Nagarajan, Ex-CPIO & Under Secretary, NCW, now SO,

NITI Aayog is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- in 5 equal monthly

installments.

40. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- from

the salary payable to Mr. G. Nagarajan, Ex-CPIO & Under Secretary, NCW,

now SO, NITI Aayog by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of ‘PAO CAT’

New Delhi in 5 equal monthly installments. The first installment should reach


the Commission by 15.09.2017 and the last installment should reach by

15.01.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S. P. Beck, Joint

Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Room No. 302, Central Information Commission,

B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110

066.

41. Mr. V.V.B. Raju has furnished the following explanation:

i. Ms. Nammi Bano, ex-contractual employee of NCW had made an RTI application

dated 21.12.2016 addressed to the then CPIO, for providing some information.

ii. As the applicant was not satisfied with the reply/information provided by the

CPIO, she filed her first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on

25.01.2017 addressed to the First Appellate Authority with a prayer ‘to instruct

the CPIO in writing to give complete information as requested in her RTI

application dated 21.12.2016 along with other prayers and also requested for

personal hearing’. Since, the undersigned was designated as the FAA in the NCW

and the applicant had made allegations against me, keeping in view, the

principles of natural justice, I requested the Competent Authority in the NCW on

03.02.2017, to nominate a suitable officer as the First Appellate Authority in the

matter.

iii. Accordingly, the Competent Authority in the NCW nominated the then Joint

Secretary as the First Appellate Authority in this matter. Further, as noted on

page 3 of the Order of the Hon’ble Information Commissioner, it was specifically

mentioned that “….On 23/24.03.2017 she received a call from the PS to Joint

Secretary, NCW calling her for a meeting on her First Appeal, and she attended

before the First Appellate Authority on 27.03.2017 at 3.00, along with her cousin

Sh. Nafisuddin……..”

iv. From the above, it is obvious that the undersigned was not the First Appellant

Authority in the said matter and the First Appellant Authority had called the

applicant and given the personal hearing in this matter. Therefore, there is no

question of obstructing access to information to the applicant by the undersigned,

as alleged in her Second Appeal.

v. Since I had recused from FAA in this case and the Competent Authority in NCW

had appointed another senior officer to hear the first appeal. As such, the

undersigned has not violated the law either in dealing with the RTI Act or the

principles of natural justice, which could attract a case of conflict of interest.

42. In this explanation it is clear that Mr. Raju was defending the PIO, instead of

explaining his conduct. This response shows that he has to be considered as

deemed PIO for the purpose of denial of the information. The explanation of

Mr. Nagarajan referred above also shows how the administration section

influenced the denial. It is established beyond the doubt that Mr. V.V.B. Raju,

the Deputy Secretary of NCW has directed the administration to deny the

information to the appellant. He claimed that since he recused from hearing

first appeal as appellant filed sexual harassment complaint against him, he was


not concerned with the supply of information. There is an empty denial of the

allegation of appellant that he influenced the CPIO. The explanation of Mr.

V.V.B. Raju is absolutely not satisfactory. He tried to justify the denial, but

failed. The Commission finds that to secure the rights of victim of appellant

under Right to Information Act, it is required to impose penalty on this deemed

PIO Mr. V.V.B. Raju. He is guilty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

43. Accordingly the Commission imposes penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon Mr. V.V.B.

Raju, Under Secretary, NCW, to be paid by him in 5 equal monthly

installments.

44. The Member Secretary is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- from

the salary payable to Mr. V.V.B. Raju, Under Secretary, NCW by way of

Demand Draft drawn in favour of ‘PAO CAT’ New Delhi in 5 equal monthly

installments. The first installment should reach the Commission by

15.09.2017 and the last installment should reach by 15.01.2018. The Demand

Draft should be sent to Shri S. P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar,

Room No. 302, Central Information Commission, B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August

Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066.

45. The proceedings of hearing in this case reflect that the public authority has not

allowed its own research officer a smooth access to public records, and made

mockery of RTI Act. Neither the CPIO nor FAA acted independently nor they

applied their judicious mind. A human rights organization like NCW, which was

created by law to protect the rights of women, has sadly denied the human

right, i.e., right to information, the group of authorities was unfortunately

united to deny this right. Even after the order of the CIC, the public authority

did not consider that it was its’ duty to completely comply with the orders of

the CIC. How the public authority allowed an accused of sexual harassment to

influence the RTI wing and entire administration to deny the information?

Though the Commission gave an opportunity to explain why compensation

should not be ordered to pay to the appellant, no officer of the public authority

submitted even a single word in response. None prayed the CIC not to award

compensation, perhaps they have understood that they have to pay

compensation for harassing her. It has to be presumed that they have no case


to deny the compensation. Appellant was totally harassed by the office.

Appellant is at liberty to claim compensation for sexual harassment under law

of torts. But, for the harassment caused by denial and victimizing her further

for filing complaints and RTI requests, she has to be compensated and

provided with the costs, without any prejudice to her right to claim damages

under Torts law. She was denied information for more than six months. Till

today complete information was not given. It is difficult to calculate exact loss

she suffered at the hands of various officers. Hence the Commission awards a

token compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and directs the public authority to pay Rs.

50,000/- to the appellant-victim Ms. Nammi Bano within 15 days from date of

receipt of this order. The appeal is posted for hearing the compliance

proceedings on 28th August 2017 at 12 pm.

Proceedings on 28.8.2017

46.The CPIO Mr. R C Ahuja submitted that in pursuance of the orders of the CIC,

they have given certified copies of around 1670 pages and also a diskette/CD

containing the video recording of the meeting before the First Appellate

Authority, to the appellant. The CPIO also submitted that the file about Mr

VVB Raju, which could not be shown to the appellant as that was on the table

of Chairperson of NCW, was offered for inspection to the appellant. The

appellant acknowledged the same. The appellant thanked the CIC and the

NCW for giving her information though delayed.

47.However she pointed out that she was not given some parts of the files of

appellant’s colleagues, Smt. Smita Jha and Shri Ishwar Chandra, who’s

services were extended, while denying it to her. She also claimed that her

ACR reports for the year 2016-17 were not given to her, which she would

show that there was no basis for denial of extension to her on the pretext of

performance and to prove that it was mala fide denial because appellant filed

a complaint of sexual harassment against him.

48.The CPIO also has submitted that he wrote letter on 25th August 2017 to the

Registrar, Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, where Mr. VVB Raju was

repatriated from NCW and to Under Secretary NITI AAYOG, New Delhi, where


Mr G Nagarajan was repatriated, for the compliance of the order of CIC

imposing penalty on each of them, to be deducted from their salary and paid

in 5 equal installments to the Joint Secretary and Additional Registrar of the

CIC.

49.The appellant and her representative questioned how Mr VVB Raju could be

repatriated as if he was given clean chit while her complaint/allegations

against him are finally not adjudicated. The CPIO stated that the Internal

Complaints Committee has absolved him of the charges. The Appellant

reiterated that she would take further legal recourse and challenge the order

of ICC inquiry on the grounds that the witnesses were not free as there was

pressure of threat of non-extension of their service, which was in the hands of

the accused officer Mr. VVB Raju. She also complained that the NCW has

facilitated him to continue in the same powerful position in administration

until the inquiry was over and that he was repatriated after CIC imposed

penalty on him considering as deemed CPIO for obstructing the access.

50.The Commission directs the CPIO Mr Ahuja to provide certified copies of

appellant’s latest ACR and related documents, part of the file of Mr. VVB Raju

including copies of his educational qualifications, files of Ms. Smita Jha and

Mr. Ishwar Chandra, which were not offered for inspection shall be facilitated

and certified copies of the same shall be given free of cost, within two weeks

from the date of receipt of this order.

ACRs of third party

51.Regarding the appellant’s demand for sharing copy of APAR or ACR of Mr VVB

Raju, it is relevant to refer to judgment of Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v Union

of India, wherein it was held that the annual confidential reports of the

employee should be shared with that employee. However the CIC consistently

held that ACRs are confidential and personal information of the concerned

officer and hence it cannot be given to the third party without exercising the

discretion under Section 8(2), according to which the public authority has to

satisfy itself that the public interest in disclosure of ACR outweighs the harm

to the protected interests. (Decision of Full Bench of CIC in P.K. Sarin Vs.


Directorate General of Works (CPWD); Appeal No.

CIC/WB/A/2007/00422; Date of Decision; 19.02.2009 followed a Supreme

Court order in Dev Dutt Vs UOI (Civil Appeal No. 7631/2002) In Arvind

Kejriwal v Central Public Information Officer AIR 2010 Delhi 216, it was

observed that except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR

record of an officer cannot be disclosed to any person other than the officer

himself/herself.

52.In view of the above, the Commission remands this part of second appeal to

the CPIO of NCW to consider the request for sharing APARs/ACRs of Mr VVB

Raju, duly complying with the procedure prescribed under RTI Act under

Sections 11 and 8(2) of RTI Act, and inform his decision to appellant under

intimation to this Commission.

Prayer against compensation:

53.Mr. R C Ahuja CPIO in his written submission to the CIC requested to waive

the order to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the appellant as the orders

of the CIC were complied with. Though it is a fact that substantial information

was given to the appellant, the truth of the matter is that it was done only

after the CIC has ordered and till then she was denied every bit of

information. The appellant was removed from her employment which is

apparently because she filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the

VVB Raju, Deputy Secretary and immediate officer to appellant in charge of

administration besides being the designated First Appellate Authority under

RTI Act. She was denied the information which could have been accessed

legally under RTI Act. No order was passed in First Appeal, and there was no

communication to her as to what happened after the hearing of first appeal

which was video-graphed. The response to show-cause notice given to Ms

Vandana Gupta, the First Appellate Authority showed that her internal

instructions to provide information to appellant were not complied with by the

CPIO Nagarajan who was under the control of Deputy Secretary against whom

appellant made serious allegations. Section 19(8) says:


(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information

Commission, as the case may be, has the power to, (a) require the public

authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance

with the provisions of this Act, including—

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its

officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of

sub‑section (1) of section 4;

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;

(d) reject the application.

54.Appellant was made to suffer without information in response to her RTI

application and also to her First Appeal. After she filed first appeal NCW sent a

notice for meeting but no information was given after that meeting, nor was

there any order by First Appellate Authority. Because of non-supply of

information she could not initiate necessary legal action against the officer

who has allegedly committed sexual harassment against her. This is loss

arising out of denial of information. Apart from this, she was removed from

her employment, and harassment continued because she was pursuing her

complaint before ICC and filing RTI request. Because of non-supply of

information in time, alleged that she could not file the appeal over the biased

and induced inquiry. This is the other detriment for which public authority

was required to compensate as per section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act. Hence the

request of the CPIO to waive compensation of Rs 50,000 is not acceptable.

The Commission directs the public authority to pay Rs 50,000 within 15 days


from the date of receipt of order and send compliance report to the

Commission along with certified copy of the acknowledgement of the

appellant.

Improper maintenance of Records

55.During the process of hearing the Commission came across most haphazard

maintenance of the records in the NCW. In pursuance of the order of

inspection to be facilitated to the appellant, the NCW facilitated the inspection

of files and an inspection report dated 4.8.2017 also was filed. The counsel for

appellant, in that report, has pointed out several defects in maintenance of

the files in NCW, such as non numbering of pages of files, partially

numbering, numbering with pencil and some in pen, some papers are not

available in the files, in some files the loose papers are found, etc.

56.In response to show cause notice dated 16th June 2017, the CPIO wrote on

25th August 2017, stated that “regarding re-shuffling or mixing up of files and

fixing up the responsibility upon the incumbents who did this, it is submitted

that it has not been found feasible to do so as no regular staff has been

provided to deal with the issues under reference in the NCW at any point of

time. The positions are either filled up on deputation or contract basis. The

deputationists are get patriated on completion or mostly before completion of

their tenure. Hence it is not possible to fix the responsibility”. It is the sad

state of affairs of most of public authorities and the Commissions such as

NCW (and also CIC). Lack of regular staff specifically trained and recruited or

recruited and trained and filling up of vacancies with unskilled multi task staff

(MTF) who are not equipped to deal with any task, who are changed almost

every year by the outsourcing contractor is seriously affecting the normal

functioning, forget the efficiency, of the public authorities. It’s sad that the

Government has no remedy for this situation prevalent almost in every office.

The Commission finds the explanation reasonable. These circumstances do

not invite penalty clauses of Section 20 of RTI Act, hence penalty is dropped.

57.The Commission has observed in its earlier order in this second appeal that

proper procedure was not being followed for maintenance of records/files in


NCW. In pursuance of this observation the Member Secretary Dr. Satbir Bedi

issued a circular on 20th August 2017 directing all sections to follow

instructions in the Manual of Officer Procedure and warned that any lapse

would be viewed seriously.

58.The Commission requires the public authority to follow the provisions of the

Public Records Act 1993 and Section 4(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of RTI Act

along with the Office Manual of Office Procedure strictly and requires the

member secretary to review the compliance of her circular.

Accused Officers’ Petition

59.Mr. V.V.B. Raju, the deputy Secretary of NCW wrote a letter dated 21.8.2017

addressed to the Chief Information Commissioner praying the Chief IC to

revisit the order of this Commissioner and refer the matter to a larger bench

to ensure fair and unbiased disposal of the matter by the Central Information

Commission. This was forwarded to this Commission.

60.It is necessary to examine the representation of Mr VVB Raju. In para 2 he

claimed that reply/information was given to RTI applicant Ms Nammi Bano on

30th December 2016. It was neither reply nor information, but denial on the

excuse that it was quite voluminous and unduly divert the resources of the

public authority in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005, fiduciary in

nature and exempted under 8(1)(e) and (j), and no larger public interest is

served in disclose of information as it relates to third party also. It contains a

last para saying ‘you may inspect the file relating to the contract of yourself

by fixing the prior appointment with Section Officer, NCW on a mutually

convenient date and time.

61.It is clear that CPIO is not interested in giving any piece of information and

the offer of inspection of service file of appellant was fraught with several

conditions, including one that appellant has to fix the appointment with

section officer on a mutually convenient date and time. Each of these

conditions is in violation of RTI Act, and reflects the anti-RTI attitude of CPIO

with complete support of Mr. VVB Raju. Mr Raju terms it as giving of

information. The CPIO has to fix up a date and facilitate inspection. He cannot


abdicate that responsibility and throw the burden on appellant to fix

appointment with section officer. The CPIO cannot mention provisions of

exceptions under Section 8(1) without justifying. He wrongly claimed benefit

under Section 7(9) and used it as an exception, which is not. He has to justify

how giving information about the public servant VVB Raju and action taken on

her sexual harassment complaint would diver unduly the resources of public

authority. The records submitted and file notings indicate that CPIO was

acting under the instructions of administration.

62.In paragraph 2 he stated that he was designated as FAA, but recused from

hearing first appeal, which factor was not brought to the notice of the

Commission, and thus he was questioned for taking up the first appeal being

an accused in the complaint by appellant. Para 2 further reveals that there

was no hearing of the first appeal but PS to Joint Secretary calls appellant on

phone for a meeting, which she attended on 27.3.2017. In para 3 and 4 he

simply termed the allegations of sexual harassment as false and quoted ICC

inquiry report saying “Therefore, the Committee after examining the

documents available on records is of the opinion that no case of sexual

harassment is made out against the alleged officer”. The appellant pointed

out several deficiencies and lapses in inquiry and alleged that witnesses were

put under fear of non-extension of service and members of inquiry committee

were given increased remunerations during the inquiry. The NCW was denying

the inquiry report copy also to the appellant, which prevented her from filing

an appeal. The inquiry report was not given to her till the Commission issued

a show cause notice to CPIO and deemed CPIO Mr Raju. Being a National

Commission for Women, the public authority should have ensured impartial

and objective inquiry and provided every bit of information to the applicant as

nothing could be denied under Section 8 or 9 of RTI Act.

63.Under para 7 he claims that he was not custodian of records and that was

undersecretary, who works under deputy secretary, i.e., he himself. In para 8

he stated that inquiry was beyond remit of CIC and claimed that the

complaint as false and concocted. He did not explain why she was prevented

from filing appeal against the conclusions by denying the copy of inquiry


report, if the complaint is concocted and false. The appellant’s allegation that

there was an increase in remuneration of members of inquiry committee was

proved by the records submitted by the NCW. It was a mockery of first

appeal, which did not result in a formal order.

64.In para 9 Mr VVB Raju made allegation of bias against this Commission and

wanted the case to be referred to larger bench. It is an illegal demand, as not

provided by any provision of RTI Act. No internal appeal is provided to larger

bench.

65.Though the Commission reconsidered prayer of Mr VVB Raju, as deemed PIO

under RTI Act, his prayer was re-considered but found not even a single point

in support of his demand, hence rejected.

66.The CPIO G Nagarajan submitted a letter dated 10th July 2017 requesting for

revision of the order dated 16.6.2017. The Commission could not find any

point or reason to revise its orders and hence his request is rejected.

Abusive language of CPIO

67.A petition was filed before this Commission, by the respondent public

authority through the CPIO Mr RC Ahuja, called ‘reply requesting correction in

the orders by this Commission vide order dated 16.6.2016 (could be a typo, it

is 2017) and 26.7.2017 and placing the matter before a larger bench.

68.In paragraph numbers 1,2 and 3, the CPIO alleged that the Commission

passed orders without even affording the opportunity of being heard to the

CPIO/Appellate Authority/Public Authority. The CIC heard the second appeal

after duly issuing notices to appellant and public authority. When appellant

could receive the notice, it is not known why public authority, which as a well

known office could not receive it. The CPIO did not place any proof of late

receipt, and if this claim is true, the CPIO should have lodged a complaint

against the body which was entrusted with service of notice to them who

delivered it late. There was no such attempt even. The allegation that CIC

decided without affording opportunity to public authority is also factually

wrong, because the CIC issued a notice to explain the denial of information, to

both the CPIO and also deemed CPIO Mr. Raju on 16.6.2017. These notices


were received by them, their explanations were duly reached, considered and

only after personal hearing of these two officers, which were totally not

convincing, the penalties were imposed. Hence the allegation that they were

not accorded opportunity to be heard is false and mischievous.

69.The CPIO Mr. Ahuja should not have suppressed the fact that those two

officers were served with notice, responded, submitted written explanations

and were personally heard before the orders were issued, as all these factors

are borne by record. It is viewed as serious misrepresentation by the CPIO Mr

R. C. Ahuja and he is warned against such misrepresentations.

70.In paragraph 4 it was alleged that CIC has mentioned the names of victims of

alleged sexual harassment which is a serious breach of law and quoted

Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition

and Redressal) Act, 2013, which prohibits publication, communication or

making the contents of the complaint, the identity and address of aggrieved

women, respondent and witnesses etc to the public, press and media in any

manner.

71.Indian Penal Code Section 228A deals with offence of disclosure of identity of

the victim of certain offences etc.—

(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known

the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 376, section 376A,

section 376B, section 376C or section 376D is alleged or found to have been

committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and

shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) extends to any printing or publication of the name

or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim if such printing or

publication is—

(a) by or under the order in writing of the officer-in-charge of the police station or

the police officer making the investigation into such offence acting in good faith

for the purposes of such investigation; or

(b) by, or with the authorization in writing of, the victim; or

(c) where the victim is dead or minor or of unsound mind, by, or with the

authorization in writing of, the next of kin of the victim: Provided that no such

authorization shall be given by the next of kin to anybody other than the chairman

or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any recognized welfare institution or

organization. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “recognized

welfare institution or organization” means a social welfare institution or

organization recognized in this behalf by the Central or State Government.

(3) Whoever prints or publishes any matter in relation to any proceeding before a

court with respect to an offence referred to in sub-section (1) without the previous


permission of such Court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—The printing or publication of the judgment of any High Court

or the Supreme Court does not amount to an offence within the meaning of

this section.]

72.The explanation highlighted above will answer the apprehension of the CPIO

and his public authority. If there is a matter relating to denial of information

before the Central Information Commission or for that matter even the

National Commission for Woman which may have to hear the complaints of

victims of sexual harassment find it essential to mention the name of the

victim. Section 16 mentioned above prohibits publication in media in any

manner.

73.The CPIO should have understood that it was second appeal before the

Central Information Commission which has every jurisdiction and authority

like a civil court or quasi judicial tribunal to hear the complaint of non supply

of information to the victim of alleged sexual harassment by none-other-than

National Commission for Woman, and when the appellant filed a

complaint/second appeal against NCW by her in her own name, it amounts to

voluntary submission of complaint to the appropriate authority to secure

documents necessary to pursue legal remedies against an accused public

servant, on behalf of whom the entire public authority like NCW stood to deny

even the copy of inquiry report. It is a clear attempt of the NCW through its

CPIO to use a provision of law which meant to protect her identity and dignity

to prevent the same victim from pursuing her remedy against the guilty

officer especially in the backdrop of allegations that ICC members were

induced with increase in remuneration during the pendency of inquiry and

that the witnesses were threatened with non-extension of contractual

employment as that happened to the victim appellant in this case. This

application also shows the attitude of the public authority National

Commission for Women to fight a small contractual employee, a hapless

victim, with all might at their command and to throw entire weight behind the

accused officer.

74.And the petition claims without any hesitation that there was another victim

of alleged sexual harassment and her name was also crept into the order. But


the NCW did not felt that it was their duty to inform what action was taken on

her complaint.

75.The object of mentioning the name of the victim of sexual harassment is not

to bring any injury to cause dignity of the victim but to secure the legal

remedies available her against a mighty organization like NCW and its well

guarded accused officer. They have no right to hide their irregularities and

illegal denial of information to the victim-complainant, under the clause meant

for protecting women and not for protecting the NCW from such illegal

actions.

76.As per law the media or any other person shall be liable for revealing the

identity of the victim of sexual harassment.

77.At the same time, the Commission directs the CPIO to inform the Commission

about action taken on the complaint of another woman alleging sexual

harassment, along with the certified copy of documents submitted to the

committee to the appellant in this case under intimation to this Commission

within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

78.In paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 made unwarranted remarks against the Commission

which is beyond the power and authority of a CPIO. If aggrieved any person

has can seek appropriate legal remedy. By making improper allegations

against the Commissioner while approaching the same Commissioner in a

petition will amount to defiance of public authority. Mr. Ahuja has no right to

make such allegations against CIC who issued the orders addressing the same

CIC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, based the submissions and

documents furnished by public authority, glaringly reflecting the illegality,

gross violation of principles of natural justice, biased dealing of the RTI

application, illegal denial of information, illegal denial of copy of inquiry report

to the victim among others, abrupt removal of first appellate authority,

withholding of the files ordered to be offered for inspection, etc, the CIC

issued appropriate directions. Unfortunately the administration did not correct

itself.

79.This petition is an attempt to cover the lapses and abdication of legal

responsibilities under RTI Act and their own NCW Act. The matter is no doubt


complex because of multiple violations of legal provisions by NCW and some

of its officers, which do not form any basis for a larger bench to hear the

matter. For the above reasons the Commission rejects the petition dated 21st

August 2017 with prayer to refer the case to larger bench.

Forum Shopping attempt by CPIO

80.The present CPIO Mr. R. C. Ahuja filed a petition before Central Information

Commission, Room Number 315, i.e., this Commission which is hearing the

second appeal, alleging bias on the part of this Commissioner and prayed that

this Commissioner has to refer this case to a larger bench. The language and

narration of Mr. Ahuja in this petition reflects his disrespect and contempt

towards this Commissioner. Being different CPIO representing the public

authority, Mr. Ahuja made illegal allegations, adopted insulting language and

attempted for forum shopping. His petition is illegal, unethical, opposed to

decency, and reflects overall effort to conceal the information from the

appellant in violation of RTI Act. From the language, tone and tenor of this

petition, it appears that Mr. R. C. Ahuja, has no regard for RTI and CIC and

such an officer, is bent upon resisting the disclosure of information that could

be given under RTI Act. The Commission was informed by other PIO of NCW

that Mr. Ahuja is designated as First Appellate Authority of NCW. With this

kind of anti-RTI and anti-CIC attitude, how can Mr. Ahuja decide first appeals

under RTI Act?

81.In the process of hearing the Commission found following disturbing facts in

relation to governance in the NCW.

a) The earlier CPIO, deemed CPIO and accused officer were relieved from the

services of NCW only after they were found liable under Section 20 of RTI

Act,

b) The NCW administration has relieved the Mrs. Vandana Gupta, who was

hearing First Appellate, before she completed the same,

c) Increased remuneration of members of inquiry committee, while inquiry

into sexual harassment complaint was going on, and refused to give this

information until CIC directed,


d) Sending across the message that term of contractual employees will not be

extended by ending contract of three officers including that of the victim-

appellant Ms. Nammi Bano and after a gap, taking other two officers,

which means Ms. Nammi Bano was removed because she complained

against one of senior officers of NCW, that amounts to victimizing further

the whistle blower woman,

e) Her RTI application was blatantly denied quoting exception clauses without

justification.

f) Partially complying with the orders of CIC, and partially denying, giving

only part information, which delayed chances of appealing against report

of ICC.

82.All these circumstances show absence of objective administration within the

public authority.

Penalty Proceedings

83.The Commission on 26.7.2017 issued a show cause notice as follows:

24. The Commission directs Ms. Vandana Gupta, the First Appellate Authority

to show cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against

her for not performing her statutory duty of conducting the first appeal in a

fair manner, before 28th August 2017.

84.In her response dated 28.8.2017 she submitted that the video recording of

meeting in first appeal was ordered by chairperson and it was video recorded.

When appellant sought a copy of video recording, it was refused along with

other information under Section 7(9) and Section 8.

85.Mr. Vandana Gupta felt that most information could have been provided to

her and rest of it could be considered only after issuing notices of consultation

to third parties. She claimed to have invited appellant to confirm from NCW

about full information as sought by her. What does this mean? If first

appellate authority feels that some information could be given, she should

have made a specific direction. How can appellant confirm from NCW about


‘full’ information? How FAA ignored the fact that because NCW did not give

information, she filed first appeal?

86.She claimed to have given instructions to the CPIOs to follow Section 11 of

RTI Act. This is a strange procedure she adopted. She has neither remanded

matter to CPIO nor conducted a hearing by herself nor issued any final formal

order. She was on leave from 13th May to 28th May 2017 and joined duty on

29th May 2017 and reviewed the progress in RTI case with RTI cell. She wrote

in paragraph 7 that “As a result apparently, I was relieved of my duties in

NCW on 30th May 2017 abruptly though no substitute was posted in my place

as was directed earlier by the Chairperson as the requirement for my relieving

from the NCW.

87.In the course of her explanation Ms. Vandana Gupta that on the decision of

the Chairperson, that Mr. Ishwar Chandra and Ms. Smita Jha, were re-

engaged as the Commission were short of staff. It means that Ms. Nammo

Bano, who was also engaged with them was singled out while other two were

re-engaged. This is how Ms. Nammo Bano was shown the door because she

alleged sexual harassment against Mr. Raju.

88.It is clear from her written submission that Ms. Vandana Gupta was not

allowed to complete the process of hearing and she was abruptly removed

from the services of NCW in violation of the norms suggested that joint

secretary should not be relieved until the substitute officer is appointed. It is

clear that she was obstructed from hearing the firs appeal and that is why

there was no formal order from the first appellate authority.

89.She wrote: “The Chairperson NCW directed in writing for me to hear the

appeal. She also directed in the same note to have the video recording of the

proceedings to be made. I received the file back on 15.2.2017 and directed

the Under Secretary who was CPIO also, for carrying out the necessary action

….as I was no longer working in the NCW, after my sudden and abrupt

repatriation within one day without affording me an opportunity or assigning

any reason for the said abrupt action…….It is worth mentioning that I was on

leave from 13th May 2017 to 28th May 2017. I joined back on duty on 29th May

2017 and on the same date enquired from the RTI cell about this RTI case.


As a result apparently, I was relieved of my duties in NCW on 30th May 2017

suddenly and abruptly though no substitute was posted in my place as was

directed earlier by the Chairperson as the requirement for relieving from the

NCW”

90.From her written submission, it is clear that:

a) The administration has violated the norm prescribed by the Chairperson

earlier that until a substitute was posted Joint Secretary/FAA should not be

relieved.

b) The administration has relieved Mrs. Vandana Gupta, who was appointed

by Chairperson as First Appellate Authority and directed to video record

the proceedings abruptly, resulting in sudden end to first appeal without

complete hearing.

c) There is no order of First Appellate Authority on record, because most

probably the NCW administration did not appoint anybody to substitute

Ms. Vandana Gupta as First Appellate Authority, which stopped the

proceedings of the First Appeal.

91.In these circumstances, it is not possible to hold Ms Vandana Gupta liable for

not giving final order in first appeal, because she was prevented from doing

so, by abruptly relieving her from her duties as joint secretary. This

ultimately led the appellant to file second appeal before this Commission.

Hence, penalty proceedings are dropped.

92.The public authority has created a situation that the applicant’s access to

information is denied by doing the acts mentioned above.

93.Transparency compels the officers to be accountable and systematic secrecy if

perpetuated breeds corruption, irregularities and incidents like sexual

harassment. Very purpose of RTI Act is to question such secrecy. It is

unfortunate that the NCW glaringly attempted to cover its public records as

secret by misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Assuming that CPIO and deemed

CPIO were not liable, why the records of inquiry report, statements or

documents submitted to inquiry committee, files of contract of appellant and

of her colleagues besides those of VVB Raju were kept secret from the


complainant? Conduct of the office and consequences show that things are

seriously going wrong in NCW administration.

94. The Directions

a) The Commission directs the CPIO Mr. Ahuja to provide certified copies of

appellant’s latest ACR and related documents. A part of the file of Mr. VVB

Raju including copies of his educational qualifications, Ms. Smita Jha and Mr.

Ishwar Chandra, shall be allowed for inspection by the appellant and certified

copies of the same shall be given free of cost, within two weeks from the

date of receipt of this order.

b) The Commission remands a part of second appeal to the PIO of NCW to

consider the request for sharing APARs/ACRs of Mr. VVB Raju, duly

complying with the procedure prescribed under RTI Act under Sections 11

and 8(2) of RTI Act, and inform his decision to appellant under intimation to

this Commission.

c) The request of the CPIO to waive compensation of Rs 50,000 has no basis,

hence not acceptable. The compensation shall be paid within 20 days from

the date of receipt of this order and send compliance report to the

Commission along with certified copy of the acknowledgement of receipt of

compensation by the appellant.

d) The Commission has observed in its earlier order in this second appeal that

proper procedure was not being followed for maintenance of records/files in

NCW. In pursuance of this observation the Member Secretary Dr. Satbir Bedi

issued a circular on 20th August 2017 directing all sections to follow

instructions in the Manual of Officer Procedure and warned that any lapse

would be viewed seriously.

e) The Commission requires the public authority to follow the provisions of the

Public Records Act 1993 and Section 4(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of RTI Act

along with the Office Manual of Office Procedure strictly and requires the

member secretary to review the compliance of her circular.

f) Being an accused in the complaint of sexual harassment filed by appellant,

Mr. VVB Raju, though recused from hearing first appeal, did not allow her

access to most of the information. The Commission, hence, concluded on the


guilt of Mr. VVB Raju, as deemed PIO under RTI Act. Yet his prayer was re-

considered. But further submissions, his complaints and petitions, response

of Mrs. Vandana Gupta, petition by Mr. Ahuja proved that Mr. VVB Raju is

obstructing the access from behind the screen and hence the fine imposed is

confirmed and the penalty from him shall be collected.

g) The Commission directs the CPIO to inform the Commission about action

taken on the complaint of another woman alleging sexual harassment, along

with the certified copy of documents submitted to the committee to the

appellant in this case under intimation to this Commission within one month

from the date of receipt of this order.

h) The Commission rejects the petition dated 21st August 2017 with prayer to

refer the case to larger bench.

95.The Commission directs Dr. Satbir Bedi, Member Secretary, National

Commission for Women to look into the above referred anti-RTI working in

NCW to find facts and suggest measures to improve the working of RTI,

action against responsible officers for denial of information and for other

wrongs under RTI Act, etc, including the following questions:

a) Is it true that first appellate authority, Ms. Vandana Gupta was abruptly

removed from her services at NCW while the first appellate was pending

with her, if answer is yes, who was responsible for the same?

b) Is it true that no officer was appointed in place of Ms. Vandana Gupta as

First Appellate Authority to complete the incompletely left process of First

Appeal of Ms. Nammi Bano?

c) If answer to question (b) is yes, who is responsible for such act?

96.The fact finding needs to be completed within one month and report shall be

filed before 20th October 2017 along with relevant documents duly certified.

97.The Commission considers that Mr. R. C. Ahuja has used abusive language,

made reckless allegations and disrespectful remarks reflecting an attitude

which could be a big obstruction to the access to information in general.

Hence, the Commission records admonition against Mr. Ahuja and warns him

to get trained and learn to respect applicants and authorities under RTI Act

and respect the provisions of transparency.


98.Under Section 19(8)(a) the Commission requires the NCW to immediately find

better equipped, well trained officers who can properly act under RTI Act,

unlike Mr. Ahuja and not to entrust RTI work to Mr. Ahuja, until he is trained

and understood the RTI Act, his duties, rights of people and its Rules etc.

99.Disposed of.

Sd/-

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy

(Dinesh Kumar)

Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.

Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO under RTI,

National Commission for Women,

Plot No. 21, Jasola Institutional Area,

New Delhi-110025.

2. Shri Nammi Bano,

3. Dr. Satbir Bedi

Member Secretary,

National Commission for Women (N. C. W.),

Plot No. - 21, FC — 33, Jasola Institutional Area,

(New Delhi — 110025).

Date post:	11-Aug-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing,...

Documents