Commission orders disclosure of information to scientist under Section 8(1) Act, criticizes public authority's inaction.

The Central Information Commission found that the denial of information requested by the appellant, a scientist, under Section 8(1) of the Act was unjustified. The Commission ordered the public authority to provide the requested information within fifteen days. Additionally, the public authority's failure to respond to the appeal and provide written comments was noted, indicating a disregard for the appeal process and the law. The Commission directed the PIO to show cause for the delay in responding to the request and recommended disciplinary action against the Appellate Authority for failing to act in the public interest.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of information sought by the appellant under Section 8(1) of the Act.
2. Failure of the public authority to respond to the appeal and provide written comments.
3. Allegations of mala fide intent in denying information.
4. Contempt for the law and disregard for decorum by the public authority.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant, a scientist, requested information related to his assessment promotion from the PIO DS Bedi, who initially denied the request citing exemption under Section 8(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority VK Gupta also refused the information without proper grounds. The Central Information Commission found that the denial was not justified under any of the exemptions of Section 8 of the Act. The Commission ordered that the requested information be provided to the appellant within fifteen days.

Issue 2: Despite reminders and requests for comments, the public authority failed to respond to the appeal and provide written comments. The non-appearance of the respondents and their lack of response indicated a disregard for the appeal process. The Commission noted the perfunctory manner of disposal of the case and the failure to uphold the law and decorum by the public authority, especially considering the standing of the CSIR.

Issue 3: The Commission observed that the PIO DS Bedi did not have a reasonable ground for the delay in responding to the appellant's request. The complaint of mala fide intent in denying information was not denied by the PIO. Therefore, the PIO was directed to show cause within ten working days as to why he should not pay the prescribed penalty for the delay in providing the information.

Issue 4: While the Appellate Authority VK Gupta was not covered by penal provisions of the Act, the Commission found that he failed to uphold the law or act in the public interest. The Commission decided to send a copy of the decision to the Director General of CSIR to consider disciplinary action under CSIR rules. The Commission emphasized the importance of upholding the law and maintaining decorum in matters concerning public information disclosure.

---